Any attempt to diminish the importance of a state's vote is disgusting.

[Zynx]

This talk that states that won't vote for the Democrats in November shouldn't really count is beyond absurd. First of all, it seems to be pretty selective, only applying to southern states. I don't hear people talk about how Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Alaska shouldn't count because we don't stand a chance of carrying any of those in the fall. Probably throw Arizona in there, too. We shouldn't hear that talk, either. It's absurd.

Simply put, there are Democrats in every state. The leader of the party has to try to represent the members of the party in every state. The states that don't vote for Democrats have comparatively fewer delegates relative to their population to reflect that those states don't have as many Democrats as more loyal states. For example, Michigan, despite having fewer people than Georgia (as of 2015 population estimates), has about 20% more delegates. New York, despite having far fewer people than Texas by over 7 million, has more delegates than the Lone Star State, which reflects the relative party loyalty. The system, for the most part, works and is fairly representative of the relative concentration of Democrats across the states. In other words, it does fairly represent the will of the body of the Democratic electorate.

A Democratic candidate should have to be able to win Democrats in all parts of this country. It's not only good for the party to not alienate its own members in states where the party is presently having difficulties, but it's also important for the country's political stability that we not be dismissive of entire regions or specific states. We cannot make enemies of our fellow citizens and especially those who are allied with our views, but currently residing in conservative-leaning states. I've always thought the purpose of the Democratic Party was to be inclusive and not exclusive.

Like it or not, we do have to represent even those states that don't vote for our candidates. Leave the vindictive crap to the Republicans. We've seen how they treat places like Flint that aren't "loyal" to them. If we go down the same path, we embrace their form of evil. Let's be better than that.

[LisaM]

1. In some ways, I think it's more important for them to have a say

in choosing a candidate. It's a chance -the only chance - to have their voice count in the election. And it's often more important that they get the candidate they want because their own governors and state legislators aren't going to do squat. I only use the word "they" because I live in a blue state, not because of people in southern states as the "other".

[Zynx]

2. I think you have a point. Our national House delegation is something like 1/3 from NY and CA.

Our party is dominated by a very narrow group of states. We have to reach out more. We need to hear the voice of our oppressed fellow Democrats in some way.

[synergie]

5. Good point. (eom)

[LuvLoogie]

3. Well put.

[leveymg]

4. Eliminate winner take all states based Presidential voting.

There you go. Problem solved.

[synergie]

6. We don't have any winner take all states on the Dem side during the primaries, that's a

Republican thing. ALL of our states are proportional allocation based on actual votes and the delegate count is based on presidential voting. I think it's fair to reward good turn out and participation that delivers a state for the party.

I think putting those states a little further behind the ones that require more attention is a good thing. As it is much too much importance is given to NH and IA, far out of proportion. That needs to be either adjusted, or they need to give the candidates more time to mill about these other states and get to know the concerns of the electorate. NH and IA have far more than their share of attention that no one else gets. It's what prompted MI to go earlier in 2008, and had the Flint thing not erupted this time around, they would have been ignored as well, when they desperately need attention.

[leveymg]

7. I'm talking about the Electoral College. nt

[synergie]

8. Why? The OP is about the primaries.

[Zynx]

10. Some people refuse to stay within the confines of the stated topic.

It's annoying, but they do it.

[synergie]

12. I think they're just confused. I've seen the same "confusion" on some other sites

where people were wondering about the remaining states and for some reason BS supporters start talking about WTA. I made the mistake of correcting one, by explaining that Dems don't have any WTA, only Repubs do in the primaries, and got pretty much yelled at and called names.

I'm not sure, but some of it seems to be some psychological coping mechanism or something. Some may desperately wish to believe that BS has some sort of chance and need to cling to whatever.

There is a lot of desperation in the air and a lot of confusion, for some people it's their first election cycle where they are paying attention and there is a lot of misinformation out there, suspicion, conspiracy theories (especially about how all failures, losses, mistakes and pretty much anything that they don't see as favorable to their candidate is a deliberate action against him), so they don't even trust explanations or rules stated anywhere.

I've never seen anything like this before, it's insane.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Well said...

[Bluenorthwest]

11. That would also mean treating the election as already over when less than half the people have

voted, which many people on DU are doing with gusto and glee. Sticking up for every State is wonderful, and I highly recommend it.

[dana_b]

13. of course!

everyone should have their say and let the election play out.