Now that the dust has settled, it's easier to see that Utah's elections process has functioned fairly well, although it's still abysmally weak when it comes to encouraging voter participation, and that goes for both of the major political parties.

Yet we will venture some general observations about Utah's system overall.

The caucus/convention system is labyrinthine but effective. It regularly draws flak from critics who say that it give too much weight to incumbents, political junkies and party bosses. We don't buy this argument, and we cite Tuesday's result as proof. If anything, this week's vote suggests that Utah's system give a challenger a better chance to deflate an incumbent's advantages.

Incumbents are generally safer in states that rely exclusively on primaries. In recent decades, for example, incumbent members of Congress running for re-election have won 98 percent of the time in most years, and 94 percent of the time even in a bad year. Incumbents like Rep. Chris Cannon usually have the edge in name recognition, big name endorsements and fundraising leverage.

But this year Utah Third District challenger Jason Chaffetz was able to focus his efforts on wooing delegates, which requires more patience and time than money -- and that levels the playing field significantly.

Chaffetz's percentage of delegate votes at the state convention was about the same as his percentage at the polls Tuesday -- a 60/40 edge -- which is hard to evaluate because of low voter turnout. The percentages may only mean that the most animated (read anti-Cannon) voters skewed the result. It's hard to say whether the outcome would be different had turnout had been, say, 70 or 80 percent as in a November presidential election. But it was clearly a surprise to many Republican Party insiders.

The biggest problem in Utah politics today has nothing to do with the early nominating process. It's the closed Republican primary that decides the final nominee in a runoff. Why can only registered Republicans vote in the party's primary? Why were unaffiliated voters -- the majority in Utah -- barred from the ballot box? Why does the party require them to declare an affiliation? These are all good questions. Democrats, we note, allow unaffiliated voters to participate without requiring affiliation, just as the GOP itself did a few years ago.

Unfortunately, the process was commandeered in 2001, resulting in the most shameful suppression of voter participation in memory. At the GOP state convention that year a small group of delegates blind-sided their colleagues with a maneuver that enshrined the closed primary into the state GOP bylaws. And now, for some reason -- and despite its horrible consequences for the notion of government by the people -- it is virtually impossible to undo.

A closed primary is bad because it disenfranchises large numbers of voters -- most of whom in Utah tend to vote Republican anyway but who still value their sense of independence and the "unaffiliated" label. Forcing them to join the party is just plain wrong, and the rule should be changed back to the way it was. It has dramatically suppressed participation in primary elections, which violates basic principles for which all Americans should stand.

This year, only about a thousand people switched from unaffiliated to Republican in order to vote.

Some other tweaks to the electoral system would help, too -- and actually appear to be on the way. Republican leadership has already promised to tighten up some of the rules and procedures at caucuses and conventions to prevent claims of favoritism that were leveled this year. That's a good thing.

As for the timing of primary elections, we suggest the date be permanently moved to early September when kids are back in school and parents are back in the groove. This would give candidates a bigger window in which to get their messages out after party conventions, and voters more time to scrutinize them.

This would not represent a shocking departure from tradition, but rather a return to it, as Utah primaries were once held in September. Of course, a September runoff would mean less time for candidates of opposing parties to debate before November. But two months ought to be long enough. Voters are tired of endless campaigning anyway, and a heavy push during September and October would be a welcome relief from the endless trickle of junk mail through the year.

All in all, we conclude that while Utah's voting process is pretty solid, it's weak on energizing voters. Only about 8 percent of eligible voters turned out this week, and only about 22 percent of Republicans. That's pathetic, and there will be consequences in the long run if people do not engage.

The creeping scourge of political apathy, like a slow moving cancer, has the very real potential to sink this country's system of government. A few tweaks here and there to the system in Utah could help to work a cure.

------------------