Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Dubious deep thinking about our political plight

Even your cynical political-hack columnists are getting weary of the non-stop analysis, commentary and minutiae of the presidential election. Even for us, Donald Trump’s taxes, his insults toward women, and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal are becoming tedious. So instead of piling on, we offer some philosophical musings on the whole process, even though deep thinking is very difficult for us.

The American system of nominating and electing a president has seldom been more criticized than this year. Does our process usually or rarely achieve the goal of selecting the best person to lead the country and manage the government?

Pignanelli: “Democracy is a form of government in which it is permitted to wonder aloud what the country could do under first-class management.” — Doug Larson

The result of this presidential election will be a direct correlation to the response of Trump attaching a label of “Miss Piggy” to a Miss Universe (I am only half joking). So in this bizarre environment of self-aggrandizement, I will arrogantly compare the national process to my first foray as a political aspirant.

When I announced my candidacy for the Utah House of Representatives, I was a 25-year-old snotty, obnoxious newly minted lawyer lacking the necessary experience for public office. I had no clue about budgeting, tax policies, education and transportation priorities, etc. But I worked hard through knocking on doors, developing messages and cobbling together a coalition of allies while promising to respond to the needs of my community.

Thus, I was similar to thousands of candidates who compete for president, Congress, governor, state legislature and even dogcatcher. American democracy is not about who is the most competent or brightest, but those who intentionally or accidentally resonate with the voters on that Tuesday in November. We expect the winners to select the right advisers, counselors and staff to ensure competency in government.

There is intense frustration with Congress and the presidential nominees. But our republic has survived far worse. Heck, Utah somehow flourished despite the intolerable rantings of a young lawmaker from Salt Lake City. So there is hope.

Webb: We do have a lousy system — but it’s better than all the rest, as Winston Churchill once said. The nation’s crazy-quilt nomination process, which empowers political activists and bestows enormous influence on a few early states, is partly to blame for our two deeply flawed, unpopular candidates.

But, to large degree, our politicians reflect the mood of the people, and in many quarters of America the mood is dark and angry. Voters are looking for a political savior. Government is not performing up to expectations, and politicians are promising far more than they can deliver. A national debt so massive as to be incomprehensible looms over the country.

I remain convinced that an underlying cause of government gridlock and dysfunction, and accompanying frustration and gloom among citizens, is that the federal government has grown so large, has centralized so much control, power and domination, and has raised expectations so high, that it cannot possibly keep all the promises it has made.

We can expect a cycle of diminishing performance and increasing citizen aggravation unless we return many government functions and responsibilities back to state and local levels where the Founders intended them to be.

Politicos are noting that most of the major Utah races are humdrum affairs with expected results. The candidate debates are generating little enthusiasm and not much press coverage. Is our local election process securing the most talented citizens for government offices?

Pignanelli: Despite the lopsided nature of partisan politics in Utah, both parties usually offer competent candidates down the ballot. Although there is little interest in local debates between candidates, the participants are earnest and eager to offer their solutions. Utahns are blessed with good choices.

Webb: We have our challenges, but state and local governments perform well in Utah. Leaders are close to the people and are accessible. For the most part, big issues and problems are confronted and dealt with. Problems get solved — a dramatic contrast with the federal government. Politics doesn’t always appeal to the very best and brightest, but we have good leadership in Utah.

Can Americans and Utahns expect any major changes to correct shortfalls with the current system?

Pignanelli: The SB54/Count My Vote signature petition process for nomination will further enhance the quality of Utah candidates. I am optimistic about the lessons to be learned from 2016 presidential elections. Traditional strategies and tactics of modern campaigning have changed and will drive reforms for selecting candidates.

Webb: After the Trump disaster, a great deal of introspection will occur within the Republican Party. Talk of third parties will get serious as the rebellious Trump and Bernie Sanders followers try to figure out where they fit in. The nomination process will be scrutinized. But I don’t expect much improvement to arise out of the turmoil. Dysfunction will continue and perhaps worsen at the federal level unless Clinton is willing to work with Republicans.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Your guide to the heavyweight presidential debate

Gather family and friends tomorrow evening. Grab some popcorn and your 64-ounce Diet Dr Pepper (or something stronger, in Frank’s case). Settle down in front of your favorite device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, TV) and watch the political equivalent of the “Thrilla in Manila” (for you young’uns, that was the Ali/Frazier World Heavyweight Boxing Championship). In one corner we have Hillary “Power Through” Clinton. In the other we have Donald “Pull no Punches” Trump.

How important is Monday’s debate in the presidential race?

Pignanelli: "In every debate … there is one and only one way to identify the winner: Who commands the room? Who drives the narrative? Who is in charge?” — Jeff Greenfield

Political weirdos, especially LaVarr and me, can maintain long-winded arguments about the impact of presidential debates upon actual elections. There are two schools of thought. Some view the verbal matches as pointless entertainment while others believe the determination of the leader of the free world and many of the other races are determined by the event. With persuasive documentation — real and fabricated — I proffer the latter is the abode of intelligent people.

In some elections (i.e. in 1976, 1980 and arguably 2000), the outcome was determined by the real and perceived performance of the candidates. Media and water cooler discussions influenced voters’ deliberations. For example, in most polls Carter was ahead prior to the debate but suffered a major defeat the week after. In other years (i.e. 1988, 1992, 2008) the verbal sparring enhanced the existing trajectory.

Furthermore, debate performance can impact the morale and enthusiasm of campaign supporters. This momentum or drag carries over into other races down the ballot. Other candidates can be beneficiaries or victims from the two hour wrestling match.

Because of the nature of this election season, the candidates involved, their willingness to say almost anything, and the belief by many that the debate will drive the outcome, Monday’s performances are not to be missed. For political junkies, the presidential debate is the Super Bowl, game seven of the World Series and the Academy Awards all wrapped together.

For me, the special evening requires the best: meatballs and wine.

Webb: Most people have already made up their minds, but the battle is for the small number who haven’t. Even a few percentage points may be important. Trump probably has the most to gain. If he can appear presidential and reasonable, he may be able to win back some traditional Republican voters, especially women, who don’t want to vote for Clinton, but who don’t like him. I think Clinton has mostly peaked, but Trump has opportunities to pick up support.

Both campaigns will claim victory. But how can Utahns best determine a successful performance?

Pignanelli: Do not expect a dignified Lincoln-Douglas exposition tomorrow. Trump and Clinton are more likely to engage in a political demolition derby. The least banged up will be considered the winner.

Utahns have trepidations for Trump, and unease for Clinton. So local voters should be attracted to the candidate who best can push some thoughtful deliberation through all the noise and hyperbole. (Yeah, but we can hope.)

Webb: Americans are ready for someone to blow up Washington and disrupt the status quo. That’s Trump’s advantage, and he needs to exploit it in the debate. But he has to demonstrate that he can shake up the establishment without wrecking the lives of you and me. He must not say something outrageous in the debate and create a whole new controversy. The revolution has to be rational and prudent. Be the bad boy rebel, but show some empathy for average people. If Trump can reassure voters, especially Republican women, that he’s on their side and that he actually has a sensible plan, then he’ll be the winner.

Clinton has to convince voters that she’s not the most establishment, status quo candidate in history, that she has new ideas to solve America’s problems. That’s tough to do when you’re the consummate Washington insider. It would be refreshing for Clinton to acknowledge the limitations of government, that higher taxes, higher deficits and more regulations aren’t the answer to all of America’s problems.

Will there be any impact on Utah races?

Pignanelli: Mail ballots will arrive shortly. There are several swing legislative and county elections that will be determined by voter motivation. A perceived glorious triumph or outstanding failure could deliver victory or defeat to these key races.

Webb: The presidential race simply isn’t going to have much influence on Utah contests, despite a recent UtahPolicy.com poll showing Utah voters are less likely to vote for someone who supports a presidential candidate the voter doesn’t like. I believe presidential considerations are less important than many other local issues and factors. Utahns will vote for the person, without worrying about national implications.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Utah races to watch in the Trump/Clinton-free zone

Exerting strict self-discipline, for the second week in a row we are not going to comment on Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, her health, her emails, her “basket of deplorables,” his bromance with Putin, his taxes, his health, or even his hair. Instead, we write how political hacks are viewing Utah races of interest, and what to expect. You are now entering the Trump/Clinton-free zone.

The 4th Congressional District includes only a quarter of the state’s population, but all Utah eyes are watching the rematch between incumbent Republican Mia Love and Democratic challenger Doug Owens. Polls suggest a widening gap, but the campaigns are acting like it’s a horse race. What’s happening?

Pignanelli: "Politics is the art of controlling your environment" — Hunter S. Thompson

Those of us who watch television belong to a soon to be extinct demographic (our children refer to the massive glass and plastic box in the family room as the “cute antique”). Yet, TV ads do provide a peek into the campaign dynamics of the 4th District.

Owens standing in the field talking about his Mormon heritage works on several levels. He reminds baby boomer viewers of beloved father Congressman Wayne Owens, while references to his handcart pioneer ancestors appeal to an important category of voters.

Love’s ad offers an energetic pulse (reminding viewers of her personality) while providing endorsements from influential and average Utahns. Clearly, this is to reaffirm an image of responsiveness to constituents, and fend off "establishment" accusations leveled at every incumbent.

Ballots will be arriving in mailboxes soon, and so these campaigns have entered the next phase of “defining their opponent.” This explains the new entrant into the electronic warfare: the attack ad from Love against Owens. He will likely counterpunch very soon.

Since Utah is ignored in presidential campaigns, we doomed generations of television audiences are grateful for the feisty battle in the 4th Congressional District to offer some political entertainment on the tube.

Webb: This will be Utah’s closest major race, and both candidates are running hard. Owens came close two years ago, despite being outspent and having limited national resources. This time, he’s better funded, more experienced, and national Democrats are backing his campaign.

But Love is a better candidate this time as well. Her biggest weakness in 2014 was that despite her compelling personal story, she was viewed as a political lightweight without enough experience or policy chops to succeed in Congress. In her first term, she has kept her head down and worked hard, earning kudos for focusing on complex financial services issues.

And she’s taking nothing for granted. Thus, she has launched a pre-emptive attack ad, criticizing Owens for his involvement in the Legacy Parkway lawsuit that delayed the project and increased costs. Owens, of course, was just doing what lawyers do.

Owens has been running ads re-introducing himself to voters, establishing himself as a moderate Democrat with deep roots in Utah who embraces Utah values.

Expect this race to soon get uglier, with Owens responding to Love’s attack ads with some of his own. Love is ahead, but this race could be close.

Although often under the radar, legislative races are frequently the most energetic of contests. What political dynamics are playing out in targeted legislative races?

Pignanelli: Democrats have the lowest percentage of legislators in modern history, but that means the GOP has a heavy burden in defending all those seats. Democrat leaders are focusing resources on selected swing districts in Salt Lake and Weber Counties.

Democrats have a tradition of strong field operations in close races (they usually win voter turnout on Election Day) but tactics must be modified to reflect early mail-in balloting (where the GOP prevails).

Webb: Most legislators serve in safe districts, so Republicans will continue to dominate the Utah House and Senate after November. But a half-dozen or so swing districts exist that are being hotly contested. These races will come down to the quality of the candidates, how organized they are, and how hard they work. Democrats lost a few of these races two years ago by only a handful of votes.

Thus, Democrats are geared up for intense grass-roots work in targeted districts. They can’t really dent GOP domination, but they can have an impact in a few races.

What are some of the other races worth watching?

Pignanelli: The heated race for Salt Lake County Council At-Large between incumbent Richard Snelgrove and challenger Catherine Kanter is drawing interest. Snelgrove is a respected moderate Republican businessman, recently honored by the Utah Taxpayers Association. Democrat Kanter is offering spirited opposition, highlighting her career success as a lawyer and mother.

Webb: State School Board races are suddenly getting hot. The Utah Education Association is heavily engaged, and some legislative leaders and their business supporters say the union is trying to take control of the board.

A lot of issues are at play here, including public education governance, school choice, charter schools, education funding, teacher salaries, and laying the groundwork for partisan school board elections in 2018.

We shouldn’t be having these public education election battles. School board members should be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The State Board of Regents is an excellent model.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Sports, culture clashes, and a little politics

Just when the fall election campaign is getting intense, we’re getting tired of politics. So we’re breaking the monotony with a sports/entertainment/culture edition of the Pig/Webb column.

Pro football quarterback Colin Kaepernick has created a firestorm by refusing to stand during the national anthem. Is he taking a principled stand, or is he a rich, spoiled sports star who deserves a spanking?

Pignanelli: "I stand obediently for the national anthem, though of course I would defend your right to remain seated should you so decide” — Ira Glasser

After a long summer of nasty politics, this guy reminds us of why America is already great (Take that Trump!). In other countries Kaepernick would be imprisoned or hospitalized. But in the USA his fortune is bolstered by skyrocketing purchases of his jersey — mostly by aggravated fans to burn the clothing in protest of him.

There is nothing more American than professional football and the money made by players, owners and sponsors. Kaepernick has a right to protest the country, but has little credibility attacking the system until he departs from its benefits.

Kaepernick will soon fade away- after enriching himself. Only in America!

Webb: All Americans, including sports stars, are free to make any protest statement they wish. I obviously don’t know Kaepernick, but I assume his feelings about black oppression and police brutality are sincere. However, he unfairly smears the entire law enforcement community by wearing socks portraying police officers as pigs. I hope young people who might consider him a role model are not influenced by this disgusting behavior.

If he is really concerned about black lives, he would have a dramatically bigger impact by using his influence and wealth to reduce black-on-black violence in places like Chicago, where the number of murders in a couple of months far outpaces cases of actual police brutality across the entire nation over many years.

Every fall the Salt Lake Acting Company performs Saturday’s Voyeur, which pokes fun at (some would say demeans) Mormons. This year, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Weinholtz scheduled a fundraising event in conjunction with the performance last Friday. Some say this is a strange way to woo Mormon voters, especially when Congressional candidate Doug Owens is airing commercials advertising his Mormon roots. What is it with these Democrats?

Pignanelli: Serving ham to Jewish guests and wearing a baseball cap at High Mass are examples of actions not illegal, but clueless and insensitive. Weinholtz is a decent, ecumenical person whose campaign made a decision that opened him for attacks of insensitivity.

Most Utahns, some begrudgingly, agree that our culture is so unique and different that it demands good-natured mockery. For almost 40 years Saturday's Voyeur has provided a clever ribbing of the state’s leaders and lifestyle. (I was in the audience from the beginning.) But over time the talented authors and actors increasingly crossed the line from funny tweaking to disparaging religious beliefs. Never accused of being a prude, even I became uncomfortable and stopped attending. Many experienced this discomfort and the performance developed a reputation, especially in the LDS community and among those who never attended, for harshness.

Most Democrats are working hard to assure LDS faithful they share common values. To avoid stereotyping and accusations of insensitivity by GOP activists, they must exercise political shrewdness and commonsense when planning public events. For the common good, we all hope this controversy ends soon and lessons are learned.

Webb: I feel truly privileged to be a member of the last group on earth that can be mocked without worry of being politically incorrect. You must be very judicious in what you say about blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, those with disabilities, Italian lobbyists (that would be Frank), etc., but go ahead and ridicule old, white, male, conservative, Republican Mormons (that would be me).

But that’s OK. If I start to feel really insecure, I’m sure I can go up to the U. and find a safe place where no one will oppress me.

I’m glad my church is mature enough to understand that when you get big and successful you become an inevitable target by those who are jealous and small, who get their jollies by belittling others.

Saturday, the U of U/BYU rivalry broke out on the football field. Our deadline precluded us from knowing the outcome as of this writing, but it allows us to ask: Is the Mormon/non-Mormon culture clash getting better or worse in Utah?

Pignanelli: Unfair bigoted remarks against Mormons continue, as do occasional acts of unintentional insensitivity lodged against Gentiles (even to my children). But the hostility level seems to be lessening.

Webb: What was all that sweetness and love breaking out between the staunch rivals in advance of the game? Seeing the two coaches hug each other makes me worry that the UEA will soon embrace the voucher people. That Fox News and MSNBC will merge, that Donald Trump will kiss up to Vladimir Putin (oops, already happened), that my dog will start playing with the neighborhood cats, that Paul Ryan will start praising Nancy Pelosi.

Is the world going nuts?

All I know is that if the Utes won, they surely must have cheated. :)

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Interpreting the campaign incongruities

For decades, Labor Day weekend has heralded the final push of the election campaign season. Vacations are over, children are back at school and the evenings are cooling. So it’s time to consider who should become the leader of the free world (and also run our state and local governments).

This has been one of the strangest elections in decades. Therefore, as a public service to voters, we provide a primer to help you interpret campaign incongruities.

Helpful election hints:

— Candidates who talk about their pioneer heritage and church positions are most likely Democrats not-so-subtly telegraphing to voters that they are Mormons. But they can also be extreme right-wing Republicans trying to convince voters that they’re reasonable folks.

— If you encounter a slew of lawn signs on empty fields, utility poles and abandoned properties, you can assume these candidates are either too lazy or too unpopular to secure support from home and business owners to display the signs.

— Can't find a party logo on a sign, brochure or billboard? Or mention of party affiliation in a radio or TV ad? Chances are that candidate is a Republican in Salt Lake City or a Democrat anywhere else. Even some GOP contenders in swing districts have abandoned the beloved elephant. This tells you something about the lack of affection for political parties among many voters.

Try not to be confused:

— If Rip Van Winkle were to awaken today, he would think a guy name “Nominee" was the Republican presidential candidate. That's because all you ever hear from many GOP candidates is, "I support the nominee." They go to great effort to avoid mentioning the "T" word. If you want real fun, when GOP candidates come to your door or neighborhood events, ask why they are supporting Donald Trump. The anguish is real and entertaining to watch.

— Democrats don't have it any easier. When you come across one of the minority party’s candidates, challenge him/her to explain their support for Hillary Clintonafter all the misrepresentations regarding the email/Clinton Foundation scandals and flip-flops to woo Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Throw in for good measure the fact that just not being Donald Trump is not good enough. Again, the anguish is real and entertaining to watch.

— You know the election is upside down when a handful of important Utah Republican elected officials try to come to the rescue of their presidential candidate — instead of the other way around. Usually, local candidates seek the endorsement of their presidential standard-bearer to demonstrate they are legitimate candidates. In Utah, top Republicans issued a letter to create legitimacy for their presidential candidate.

What does that mean?

— Many candidates boldly brag that they refuse to take money from PACs, special-interest groups and lobbyists. What that really means is that PACs, special interest groups and lobbyists aren’t interested in donating to them. So the candidates have nothing to lose by bad mouthing them.

— Likewise, many candidates slam the “1 percent” or the “crony capitalists,” but are more than happy to take money from the wealthy industrialists, the dot-com billionaires, the movie stars and entertainers, the millionaire athletes, and others among the super rich.

— Typical slogan: "Fighting the [insert one of the following: special-interest groups, bureaucrats, elitist insiders, etc.] in [choose one of the following: Washington, D.C., Salt Lake City, Town Hall] to protect our [insert one of the following or combination thereof: family values, rural values, traditional values, states rights, local government rights, children, those who can't speak for themselves, the impoverished, etc.]. Don’t worry, it has all been message-tested to ensure that you will not be offended.

Huh?

— It’s expected that candidates of both parties will complain about the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C., and blame the other. This is similar to Coke and Pepsi complaining about tooth decay and obesity.

— Some politicians try to change the behavior of the masses — like expecting them them to reduce use of fossil fuels, take public transit and lower their carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the politicians themselves keep flying their private jets and traveling in convoys of large, fuel-guzzling SUVs.

— If you're on Amazon or another online shopping site, and ads for the Libertarian or Green party candidates keep popping up, you are spending too much time looking for hemp products or solar panels. Yep, all the politicians are tracking you and your preferences and serving up ads customized for you.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: What would a Clinton or Trump presidency be like?

Two candidates with low trust and low approval ratings are competing to become the leader of the free world. So it’s worth speculating how each nominee would perform as commander in chief.

How would a President Donald Trump govern?

Pignanelli: "I have no idea what Trump might do if he ever became president. If you look at his statements, proposals, ideas, it's a kind of a garage sale and I don't know that there's a Rembrandt behind that lawn mower that won't start.” — Bob Woodward, Washington Post

Readers: If Trump is elected, consider investing in wax manufacturing companies. Millions of nervous Roman Catholics will be lighting massive amounts of church candles every week to promote divine assistance to the new administration. Americans of other faiths will pursue various entreaties to a higher power with similar goals. How Trump has conducted his businesses and this campaign is cause for the extreme fear (especially with some of the consultants hired). However, a Trump administration will be the most entertaining four years for many of us since college.

Almost daily, Trump’s masterful media representatives attempt positive spins on his outrageous remarks. As a demented political hack, I respect this dark magic. Legions of these crafty agents will surround a Trump administration to offer clever explanations why Mexico refuses to pay for the wall, Vladimir Putin’s antics and traditional manufacturing jobs not returning to this high-tech economy, etc.

Because Trump is relying on self-acclaimed negotiating skills to fulfill his promises, there will be many initial failures. At some point, will he jettison all the sycophantic "yes men and women" he appointed and expand the cabinet with knowledgeable individuals? Trump’s campaign experience suggests he stays on a dangerous and troublesome course.

I'm happy to teach my Mormon friends how to use a rosary.

Webb: A friend who follows the X-Men movies suggests the shape-shifting character Mystique was patterned after Trump, or maybe vice versa. We really have no idea who Trump is or how he would operate. Will it be the vulgar, offensive Trump? Will it be the kindler, gentler Trump of late? Will he listen to wise advisors? Would a Trump presidency reflect his core philosophies (whatever they are)? We don’t know much about his policies, which seem to change on a whim.

Will Trump really shake up Washington? I’m all in favor of that, if it’s done sensibly and reduces the role of the federal government in our lives. Washington needs a good thrashing. Will Trump offend our allies? Will he master the nuances of foreign policy? I want a president who shows strong leadership — but not one who plunges the country into war or depression in the first six months.

Voting for Trump will require a lot of hoping and guessing.

How would a President Hillary Clinton govern?

Pignanelli: Love her or despise her, at least we know a President-elect Clinton would have an important decision Nov. 9. Does she maintain the charade and push the progressive agenda she’s reluctantly agreed to to capture the nomination? Or does the famous Clinton “shameless flexibility” reappear and pursue a realistic economic and foreign-policy strategy to attract support of moderate Republicans and practical Democrats?

During the first Clinton administration, she and her husband were very adept in sensing trends and unabashedly molded policies accordingly. While this led to left-wing grumbles, there was undeniable success in deregulation of key sectors, free trade, entitlement reform and promotion of economic resurgence. Business types and Wall Street bigwigs donate to her because they know she clearly understands how the world works.

Webb: We know plenty about Clinton, not much of it good. She’s very much a creature of Washington, uses poor judgment and is ethically challenged. Needing to defeat a socialist, she’s become a leftist, promising bigger government, higher taxes and a new government program for every interest group.

Some say Clinton is, at heart, a centrist and she might compromise more and work better with Congress than President Barack Obama has. But the Bernie Sanders people will keep ultra-liberal pressure on her. That’s her base. Certainly, she will appoint liberal judges, and that could have greater negative consequences than anything else she’ll do.

A Clinton presidency means business as usual in Washington — Clinton cronies in charge, lots of gridlock and dysfunction (a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers). No progress on the big issues facing the country.

What a choice!

Can the Republican Party survive Donald Trump’s anti-establishment populism, or is it headed for a steep decline? 

Pignanelli: The GOP survived the LBJ landslide, Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. This election is just another phase in a historic realignment of the American political structure.

Webb: Only one person can keep the Republican Party viable and unified — Hillary Clinton. She’s fully capable. Even so, expect plenty of squabbling. Can the Trump wing and the mainstream wing co-exist? Is it the party of Trump, or the party of Paul Ryan? Will mainstream Republicans leave (or be driven out)? If Republicans avoid a circular firing squad and instead focus on Clinton they’ll be all right.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Debating the necessity and relevancy of the Electoral College in electing our presidents

Since the dawn of the Constitution, Americans have debated the necessity and relevancy of the Electoral College in electing our presidents —m which offers your columnists the opportunity for a good argument.

Should the Electoral College be preserved, or is it an anachronism that should be replaced by a popular vote?

Pignanelli: “I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College.” — Al Gore

LaVarr appropriately defends the Electoral College, as both are outdated relics. Our bizarre presidential selection process was rushed through the 1787 Constitutional Convention to appease various interests … and is overdue for elimination.

Alexander Hamilton opined in The Federalist Papers 68 that the Electoral College was designed to ensure that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Nice try.

The existing “winner takes all” process (absent Hamilton’s “judicious” deliberations) is warping presidential elections. Candidates and media divide the country into red and blue states, and those categorized as “swing” acquire all the attention. These battleground states account for 95 of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the election. Further, the outcome within each of these states are decided by a small number of counties — local campaign war zones that, in a very tight race, have the potential to determine the next president. The Founders would be aghast.

The notion that the elector procedure protects small states’ rights is a nice fantasy. Presidential candidates expend resources in only three to four small states. Further, aspirants never bother to develop an alliance of small states for support. Eliminating the College will promote concepts and ideas that transcend swing state boundaries. A successful national candidate will construct a broad coalition to include many categories of Americans, not just the party base with a sliver of independents. As Senator Bob Doleobserved, “Direct election of the president is common sense federalism.”

Webb: Frank adopts the trendy, but flawed, populism of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Rile up the masses and turn them into a mob. Forget about thoughtful, representative government.

Without the Electoral College, presidential candidates would focus all of their time, money and attention in the big cities and the crowded coastal population centers — where the votes are. A campaign advertising dollar spent in New York City reaches a lot more people than in Utah. The small states and the flyover country would be ignored. Candidate platforms would pander to big-city liberal agendas.

One of the last remaining bastions of balanced federalism is the Electoral College. It forces candidates to respect states, to campaign state-by-state, to pay attention to individual states and their concerns and issues, to listen to state leaders and seek their support.

If candidates needed to simply win 50 percent (plus one vote) of the popular vote, their national campaign map wouldn’t be divided by state lines, but by national demographic segments. The chief campaign goal would be, “How can I win the big demographic groups and population centers for a majority of votes,” not, “How can I win enough states to assemble 270 electoral votes” — a very big difference.

Would Utah benefit or be harmed by elimination of the Electoral College?

Pignanelli: I have heard for decades — without a shred of evidence — that small states like Utah benefit from the current system. According to Electoral College Primer, Utah is one of the six states with the least voting power in national elections. Because of our unique characteristics, Utahns would receive extra attention from presidential contenders unobstructed by the College.

Webb: Utah is receiving attention this year from Hillary Clinton precisely because she wants Utah’s electoral votes (she’s even discussing religious freedom). Same reason Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona get attention. Without the Electoral College, Utah and the Mountain West would be snubbed.

Is there a possibility the Electoral College could be eliminated or drastically modified?

Pignanelli: Because of the dynamics of this election, there are rumblings that some College delegates may ignore the results of their state’s elections and select a person other than one of the two most despised politicians in the country. Such actions may drive needed reforms.

Webb: Writing in The Huffington Post, two liberal columnists attacked the Electoral College because (among other reasons) it forces candidates to talk about family farms “when there are less than 1 million professional farmers in this country” instead of talking more about public transportation “taken by tens of millions of Americans every week.”

Thankfully, many state leaders understand the importance of candidates talking about family farms in rural America, and not just about big-city issues. They also understand that the relentless encroachment of the federal government has relegated America’s states, once proud and sovereign, to bit players in the federal system. They will protect the Electoral College because eliminating it would be the final nail in the coffin of balanced federalism, a once-revered constitutional provision, now nearly lost.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Alternative presidential candidates, BYU and Sen. Hatch

Olympic games and political games are both getting attention in Utah. It’s fun to watch participants in both pursuits hit, run, feint, jump, win, lose, celebrate and cry.

Alternative presidential candidates, like Libertarian Gary Johnson and Provo native Evan McMullin, are seeking votes in Utah. Will they have any real impact on the race?

Pignanelli: "Are Libertarians just Republicans who want to smoke pot and rich Democrats wishing to avoid taxes?" — Numerous commentators

Usually, third-party candidates are gadflies not taken seriously. But when they have impressive backgrounds, and there is confusion in the traditional parties, they can perform well … especially in Utah. Remember, Utahns delivered second place to independent party candidate and billionaire Ross Perot in 1992.

The Libertarian candidates are credible and well-respected and are gaining traction. But there is more than just Americans rolling their eyes at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The insurgent candidates (Trump and Bernie Sanders) have instilled impractical populist themes in each party's platforms that are making their way into the candidates’ speeches. This is driving more examination of alternatives by serious-minded voters.

McMullin is benefiting from a brief burst of attention, as is the Green Party candidate. But the Libertarians will become more attractive as a potential alternative. Johnson and William Weld are former successful governors who provide serious policy offerings that are intriguing many frustrated with the major candidates and/or their stands on trade, regulations and fiscal matters.

So the dynamics are different, but the net result will be the same as 24 years ago. A third party will impact the presidential race across the country and in Utah. This offers some fun and respite from the nastiness. (My son is a registered volunteer for the Johnson/Weld campaign. No snarky comments please.)

Webb: Dislike of Trump and Clinton is strong enough that many Utah voters are seeking alternatives. But in this stranger-than-fiction political year, no good alternatives exist. Johnson would be almost as weird a president as Trump. McMullin’s bid is too little, too late, even if he has supporters with significant money.

McMullin and Johnson are hoping for a complete Trump collapse. Not going to happen. Trump’s floor of true believer support is much higher than Johnson or McMullin will ever attract. Like it or not, either Trump or Clinton will win the election. If the race is close, Republicans voting for anyone other than Trump will help elect Clinton.

LGBT organizations oppose BYU’s bid to join the Big 12 athletic conference. Is this flare-up a trend of things to come?

Pignanelli: How any organization — public or private — adapts its policies to LGBT persons will forever be scrutinized as a fundamental aspect of society. Support by the LDS Church of the antidiscrimination amendments demonstrates deep compassion and understanding of these issues. I am confident that these emotions will be reflected in BYU policies and allow for admission into a collegiate conference.

Webb: If Hillary Clinton really cares about religious freedom, as she purports in her much-ballyhooed Deseret News op-ed, perhaps she could write a letter to the Big 12 presidents, suggesting they ignore the LGBT activists’ demands. Is her religious freedom devotion more than pandering? She would never write such a letter, of course, because LGBT support is far more important to her than Mormon support.

We need to understand who we’re dealing with here. In Utah, we’re nice. We like to compromise, find common ground, see some good in the other side. These militant LGBT groups aren’t nice. They play hardball. They’re out to destroy anyone who doesn’t fully support their extreme ideology. They have no tolerance for heart-felt religious convictions. Bigotry is no sin as long as it’s directed at a religious organization not aligned with their agenda.

The crusade to deny BYU Big 12 membership is a harbinger. Tomorrow they will attack church tax-exempt status, federal research dollars, student grants and loans. Anything to hurt any institution that doesn’t surrender to their demands.

Sen. Orrin Hatch has been in the U.S. Senate longer than some of his potential challengers have been alive. Will he seek an eighth six-year term in 2018?

Pignanelli: This has elevated from just talk into serious deliberations among politicos and Hatch watchers. The general consensus is that if the GOP keeps the Senate, Utah’s senior senator will likely run again. Each day more Republicans are adopting the strategy of conceding that Trump loses, but campaigning that there needs to be counterbalance to Clinton. This would be the Hatch strategy in developing his campaign. Other potential candidates also understand there is one factor that remains constant — it is foolish to underestimate Hatch.

Webb: The senator has immense power, clout, respect — and seniority (no kidding). It would hurt Utah to lose Hatch. But everyone has to retire sometime — or die in office. I believe Hatch would like to run again. But it will depend on his health and whether Republicans maintain Senate control. If, by some miracle, Republicans take control of Washington, Hatch will be positioned to do some great things for Utah and the country.