I've been a registered R for years, dh has been unaffiliated. Both of us dislike the closed primary. He did switch affiliations this year to vote for Jason Chaffetz in the primary - yay! But, we would like to see them be open and to see the Republican party stop being so paranoid!

Lockhart needs to wake up. I wonder what the person who wins the nomination feels like when his party leaders call him or her a "weak nominee." How about you have people run for office who are not "weak nominees" and then you don't have to worry about closing your elections.

Wow! And the media reported earlier that Utah Voters were just plain lazy...

For once somebody finally got it right.

I for one, knew this at the time. I tend to vote Republican, but absolutely refuse to register as one - therefore no vote in the primary. I'm just an ordinary citizen, and feel that there are many many many ordinary citizens out there who feel the same way.

So after all that was said and done, somebody finally admits that there were plenty of voters who actually were exercising their right to vote, by not voting as registered republicans - as opposed to the plain lazy scenario originally reported by the media.

So, why don't those of you that are complaining about the republican closed primary, take a democratic ballot and vote for the democratic candidates. Oh, yes I forgot, they choose all of their candidates at their convention, as do the third parties. They don't even give their registered democrats or the rest of the registered voters a choice either, just a different way to eliminate the people. Could this be the reason that democrats field such poor candidates, that are unable to identify with Utah voters and be elected?

I really wouldn't mind if "independents" could choose which primary to vote in, but I doubt that it would make much difference. Of course since only the republicans allow a choice of candidates, I suppose that they would all take republican ballots.

I believe that in the 3rd Congressional District Primary it would have only increased the spread of the vote from 20% to 30%-40%. Independents are more opposed to incumbents than are the party members. Many of the democrats would also switch to independent in order to vote, reducing the Democratic Party to a level unable to even compete with third parties.

My issue with the Primaries is that ALL taxpayors pay for these elections. I am a registered GOP and voted in the Primary, but why should a Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, ect...pay for an election if they don't have any candidates? These are Party elections - not general elections. Unless everyone is able to vote I don't think the taxpayers should be picking up the tab. Let the parties pay for their own elections - not the taxpayors.

Political Parties are essentially White Collared Mafia in my opinion. They support the group to retain the group’s power. They have hardly any individuality. I stay unaffiliated in order to vote for the best candidate who shares my views. I always vote, only when I’ve been turned away by the Republican Primaries, have I not voted. But I feel I shouldn’t be relegated to a party which has its primary agenda being to keep the party strong. I think its bogus how both parties handle things. Lobbyists and organized Parties (which work like the Mafia, only with less killing, but similar corruption) are what make up the White Collared Mafia that runs this country. Which I feel is the greatest country in the world! But, it would be better without them.

Leave the Primaries OPEN to UNAFFILIATED VOTERS, because we should all be unaffiliated with the Parties and voting for the best Candidate. Both of the Parties Paranoia is why. This is ridiculous.

Let the People choose the People to represent them. (Not some Party’s choice, or putting is someone because they part of a Party your in).

As an unaffiliated voter, the tilt of this article upsets me. I refuse to register Republican, ever, but I care greatly about what happens. With only a 14% voter turnout for Registered Republicans maybe the article should be looking at those who identify themselves as Republicans rather than the unaffiliated voters.

Why should one party have to allow nonmembers to vote in their own primary? It's their group, with their own rules. Whatever happened to the right of assembly and association?

How about if I go into your house and start rearranging the furniture the way I want it? That would be more fair than excluding me.

When it comes right down to it, if we care about our liberty, there's nobody worth voting for in any party. (See D&C 134 in which we are commanded--not recommended--to elect good, wise, and honest men. In other words, we've got nobody to vote for unless we write somebody in.)

I agree that Republicans should be the only ones selecting who will represent their party, just as Democrats should be the only ones selecting who represents their party. To do otherwise would be like having someone from Arkansas or Indiana represent New York, it just doesn't make sense. Oh wait, isn't that what Hillary is doing? Point proved, it just doesn't make sense.

When I went down to vote in the primary, I was not registered in either party, but was told I could register then as a Republican and go on line two weeks later and de-register. I did it so I could vote and it has been possible to figuratively hold my nose since the primary.

If you unaffiliated voters want to nominate someone, get together,create a group (oh no a political party) and put forth your candidate like the third parties do. There is nothing to stop you but your unwillingness to get off your rear end, leave your computer and put forth the effort. Instead you take the easy way out, that of the victim. As long as you wish to blame others you have no chance of making changes. Just the way those in power like it.

The problem with the "Lou Dobbs Independents" is that they leave it up to others to select the candidates, even if you vote in the primary, you take what the party gives you. Then you have to settle for what the parties produce in the general election. If you want real influence get involved at the grass roots level. Utah's neighborhood caucus is a good place to start and get yourself elected as a delegate. Otherwise sit on your can, be a victim and let others make the choice for you.

That`s why they are unifiliated they don`t want to vote in the republican primary because their not republicans.

I agree with Who Pays: The GOP delegates didn't finish the job at convention which is their shot to narrow the field. If they don't get it done there, it goes to a primary election where the electorate should get to vote.

As for Democrats not having candidates to vote for..they do...For some reason, many Utahns feel that the best qualification for an office holder is simply having an R by your name. You see, and get, what you vote for...RSL Stadium forced down our throats, Walkers alleged bribery, Curtis covering it up...They all happen to have Rs after their name.

I should not have to pledge allegiance to the GOP in order to vote. I have that right as an American.

And as far as my taxes paying for the election, that further demands that I should be able to vote in the primary regardless of my affiliation.

OPEN IT UP GOP! Maybe if a lot of democrats win this year in Utah, the GOP will rethink their socialistic plan.

The extreme Republicans who run the party have done everything they can to limit people's right to vote. I would have liked to participate, but I couldn't figure out how. Furthermore, I am outraged that my tax dollars paid for an election I was barred from voting in. If the Republicans want to have a private election, by gosh let them pay for it!

I am unaffiliated, and I voted in the primary...its not my fault some idiot decided to hold 2 primaries!!!

I, for one, have no problem with open primaries. I would have voted for them to be open in 2002, but Joe Cannon bundled a bunch of things that were silly for convention.

The only reason to close them is that people were afraid that the democrats would all vote in the primary, pick the weakest candidate, and then win in the fall.

I haven't seen that happen. Why would anyone vote for the weakest candidate and risk them getting in?

This shows that on the Cannon/Chaffetz race, it was the registered republicans that said 2008 was the last year Cannon would be our rep.

We didn't get a bunch of democrats voting Cannon out, just because the want Bennion Spencer and figured that it would be easier to fight against someone that wasn't an incumbent.

We also didn't get a bunch of democrats voting for Cannon, realizing most in the 3rd district wanted Cannon gone and Cannon making to through the primary would increase the likelihood of B. Spencer winning.

(Yes, I voted for Jason Chaffetz, and will in Nov.)