An Issue of Legitimacy and Democracy

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I personally know, respect and like both Democratic candidates. Both are qualified. Both will be an agent of change from years of profligate spending on a misguided war. Both will address the discontent that results from long unmet needs and the mismanagement of our nation's economic affairs.

That said, I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.

Comments

[go4thegold]

Corrzine is semi honest, so I'll cut him some slack... But he is dead wrong when he says popular vote is important. Not at all. that's why we have delegates who are chosed to represent states of inequal size. This is the reason for our two house (bicameral) system -- in an attempt to make each state equal... Not some states more equal than others... So popular vote is MEANINGLESS. So maybe it's time for the losing side to finally take a look at facts... Only one thing gives you the nomination­... DELEGATES. So, Mr. Corrzine, face facts as you seem hesitant to do... And stick to your earlier treatice..­.The one with the most "pledged" delegates should get the Super D's votes. D.

[EinChicago]

That's exactly teh problem. In Obama Cultist's eyes, some states are definitely separate and less equal. While other states, like South Carlina, are considered separate and more equal than other.

[DoninJoisey]

Nice try.
Obama is ahead by any measure you choose -
Total delegates
Total states
Total votes
The people are speaking! Listen to them!

[NorVaGal]

EinChicago: "In Obama Cultist's eyes, some states are definitely separate and less equal. While other states, like South Carolina, are considered separate and more equal than other." Never in a million years would I have suspected that the Clintons and their supporters are Obama Cultists. So THAT'S why they believe that some states are separate and more equal than others, like NY, California, Florida, Michigan, etc., and, according to them, other states are separate and less equal, like all the states that Obama won. Wow, who woulda thunk it? What an eye-opener!!

[northeast73]

you keep saying "delegate, delegates, delegates.­..delegate­s are how you win, not votes, delegates"

Barack Obama CANNOT WIN ENOUGH DELEGATES TO WIN THE NOMINIATION.

Do you keep forgetting that inconvenient fact?????

[seattleblogger]

What's your point? Hillary can't win with pledged delegates either. So I repeat, what's your point?

[Shozen]

The "do over" should be a state issue. Michigan and Florida need to shell out the money to redo their primaries. As to the issue of "Disenfran­chisement,­" both states knew full an well the penalty for bumping up their primary dates would be having them not count. Furthermore Clinton as well as the other Candidates for the nominee AGREED to DISENFRANCHISE those voters last Fall. In the efforts to salvage the failing campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign and the Clintonista supporters are sowing discord and doubt in such a way that to ensure that should Obama becomes the Nominee he would not be considered the "legitimate" nominee. Such behavior only helps the Republican­s...

[EinChicago]

"The "do over" should be a state issue. Michigan and Florida need to shell out the money to redo their primaries. " More idiocy from teh Obama Cultists. Take two vital swings states currently going through major recessionary issues. Force them to sepnd money they don't have on a re-do because of Brazile, Dean and Obama's ineptitude; and then expect teh swing voters and GOP in those states to just accept that? Yeah. that'lll work. GOP ads will have a field day with teh dems forcing hardworking Floridans and Michiganers to spend more tax money fixing dem foul ups. There wouldn't be a single swing voter who wouldn't go GOP.

[DoninJoisey]

Well, Corzine could afford it, if he feels so strongly.

[veracity]

Gov. Corzine, FL & Michigan delegates wouldn 't be an issue this primary, if Hillary did not go back on her word, to make it so.
Why did Hillary pledge toO NOT seat MI & FL delegates?

Because she was wooing New Hampshire and Iowans proud of their "First in Nation" primary status. Hillary thought that by winning NH and Iowa, and then super-Tuesday, the primary WOULD BE OVER before it even got to Florida or Michigan!
She was willing to slight millions of MI and FL voters to gain the nomination.

BTW, Gov. Corzine, in 2006 Democrat Christine Jennings lost her bid for the Florida District 13 congressional seat - the seat Katherine Harris gave up to run for Senate - in no small part due to 18,000 "undervotes" in that election count. Neighboring districts had undervote totals in low 1,000 range. An inquirey held that there was no computer fraud... a confusing ballot led to the huge "undervote" tally, which the state awarded to her Repub. opponent with a small 500 vote majority.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/NEWS/611090343
But that means, in most recent election, Florida lost over 16,000 more votes to an "undervote" tally in District 13, than undervote tallies in a dozen other districts, combined!

Give Florida ANOTHER chance to override a national popular majority, based on a state where vote counting managed to lose over 16,000 votes IN ONE DISTRICT this past election (not to mention 2000), alone?? No Thank you!

[Hillrick]

Even at this stage McSlain has a hard time rubbing two nickels together. If this was rigged or in the bag for him then cash would be flowing to him. It's not. Same as people worrying so much about electability. If we could figure that out we wouldn't have had Bush 2.0. Just in the campaigning we are having bend the rules to my advantage, rethug tactics, lies and distortions, and disgraced associates who leave but don't go too far. Do we really want this to be a precursor of te next 4 years? She is not just bringing her own baggae she is buying more as she goes along. Clinton gave it her best shot and proved short of the challenge no matter how much some would like it to have been different. Seriously, would you let your children get away with this kind of behavior?

[helonias]

no Jon

[Rounder99]

Couple of things you left wingers argue about your 2 weak candidates both are horrible presidential cadidates who won't be able to beat a tired old man in November, I think you are in for a big disapointment.

I also think HuffPo is smart not allowing you viscious evil people to post on the Heston death, you wackos would just disgrace yourselves once again.

[tombollocks]

We could never disgrace ourselves as much as Republicans holding office, Heston, or a tired old man, let alone people who voted for George W. War Criminal.

[Rounder99]

War criminal - dearm on wack job. W has kept us safe for a long time, terrorists just waiting for a weak d'rat to take office.

[Loculi]

Judging by the lack of proper grammar and spelling in your post, I'm going to venture a guess that you were a big supporter of No Child Left Behind too.

[letstalkissues]

We must not allow ourselves to degrade our democracy with namecalling and anger. We are so fortunate to be able to freely debate issues that are important to us. When we allow ourserlves to get angry we are longer intelligently engaged in political debate, we just sound ignorant. I have read many of your posts and they all seem so angry with so little substance. I disagree that we have bad choices for President, I am hopeful about our political future for the first time in my adult life. I beg you to find issues you feel strongly about and go beyond the superficial name calling. I'm sure I can respect your opinion on the issues and would like you to respect mine. Believe me, I've been there. In the last two elections I have lived among people with political opinions that are very different from mine. I have found myself reacting at times with silence and, at times, with anger. Neither worked and I have had to learn to educate myself on the issues and speak with respect. And, guess what? It works, people listen, and we all learn.

[joja]

Look, gov, you've been eating too much Clinton bullshit -- the Floridians I know would vote for Obama, overwhelmingly, so your argument that the FL primary results should stand, is a specious one -- and very destructive to the party.

Given all the facts which have occurred to date, the bottom line is, neither FL or MI was a legitimate contest, no matter how much spin the Clintons wish to put on it. No candidates were supposed to be on the ballots, but -- surprise! Hillary FORGOT to have her name removed(?)! Gee, that was convenient!

Then, the Clintons "won" in MI with less than 55% of the vote -- while everyone was saying at the time, that they would have to get at least 60% to prove viability -- against "no one," as Karl Rove said. And in FL, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in some precincts, only Hillary's name, not even an "uncommitted" spot to choose from -- how is that "fair?"

And now you, and other Clintonistas, want everyone to just forget all that ever happenned, let's kiss and make up, and give the Clintons the nomination 'cause, darn it, they just deserve it! I don't think soooooooo!

You've been played for a fool, Mr. C. The Clintons have hustled you like they did a whole lot of people. This is not about what's best for the party -- if it was, they'd have bowed out long ago. This is about THEM! It always has

[AlphaDoc]

I don't think Governor Corzine is arguing that the FLA/MI primaries were fair . . . he's calling for a "do-over," so that FLA/MI voters can have a chance to have their voices heard. Anyone with even a toddler's sense of fairness can't legitimately claim the results should stand as is. At least Corzine isn't trying to blame Senator Obama for their votes not being counted, as so many other Clinton supporters are.

[DoninJoisey]

A revote would be fine.
Hillary has called for the votes to stand as is, and she's well beyond toddler age, but no sense of fairness.

Don't you understand? This is HER TURN.

[zeiben]

I just don't get how, in virtually the same breath, these Clintonites can espouse the view that "every vote must be counted", and then, simultaneously, that the "superdelegates have to judge who is most likely to win in November". The implication there, is that every vote should be counted, but then what? Ignored? overruled by wiser people? What the hell is the point of counting them if you don't care what they say?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

I'm have difficulty figuring out why you have so much trouble understanding the dem system. ALL the votes should be counted to select the elected delegates. When we do this, we also get a popular vote figure.

Once the elected delegates are selected by counting all the votes, then the super delegates enter the process. the super delegates may use ANY criteria for making a decision that they want to.

If the super delegates are only supposed to rubber stamp the candidate who leads in elected delegates but doesn't get to the required 2024 number, then what is the point of having super delegates?

The super delegates ar there to make an informed decision. At the time they make their choice, much more data is avaiable than was when the early primaries took place. Something drastic may well take place between now and the end ofthe primaries. You never know. It may be necessary for the super delegates to overturn the will of the people based on some new informatio that comes out. Let's just wait and see. What are you so worried about? If nothing distirbinh happens, the super delagtes will vote for Obama. Do you know of something he is trying to keep hidden from the super delegates before they make their choice?

[zeiben]

You bring up another good contradiction. HRC and Corzine are hyping the popular over delegate angle, and calling caucuses undemocratic, and yet, the superdelegates are somehow a good idea? Does anyone really think that if she were doing better in caucuses, leading in the pledged and behind in the popular that her position wouldn't be 180 degrees reversed?

The superdelegates are there to overturn the elected delegates in the event that a leading candidate comes up with some humdinger of a problem AFTER gaining a lead in early states. It's a safety net, a last resort, not just a bigger version of the supreme court. HRC has not been able to establish such a problem with Obama and unless she does, then yes, the superdels need to respect the pledged delegate and popular votes.

[veracity]

The even more stunning example is Hillary claiming "3 am crisis management" expertise.­.. but when it came to her vote for Iraq war, she now claims she was HOODWINKED, conned, I tell ya, by that mean ol' George Bush and Dick Cheney. Despite week's worth of time to inform herself of the life-and-death issue, Hilary couldn't even bother to read the NIE - National Intelligence Estimate - which shot down jsut about every single Bush-Cheney rational for attack and war.
Not to mention, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Jeb Bush had signed the PNAC NewAmericanCentury.orgg) "statement of principles" that "America..­. must attack and invade Iraq, Immediately!" way back in June of 1997!

Toss in UN/ IAEA inspectors on the ground; that you can not easily hide nuclear enrichment facilities (they are energy hogs), that the US could find NO Iraqi whistle-blower with direct ties to such a WMD program (despite the hge sums US media would have paid such whistleblowers), that Bush and Cheney had stolen election 2000 in a partisan and devisive fashion, and done nothing to avenge the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in October of 2000 (while Bush took month-long vacations in summer of 200)( - given these and 1,000 other doubts, Hillary Clnton had no excuse for voting for the war authorization - and a lot of nerve claiming she has crisis management resolve and foresigh!

[DoninJoisey]

But what about opposing NAFTA - oh, that's right, she didn't.
Peace in N. Ireland - oops
Instrumental in bringing about SCHIPS - not so much
Bosnia - another falsehood to build the image

There's a pattern - say what sounds good- at the time. Count on people forgetting what you said before.

[BOb4BO]

Not only the super delegates now the Clintons want committed delegates to switch over to them in ND and other states. It seems so dishonest to say ever vote counts in MI and FL and then work to undermine the will of the people as expressed through their votes in other states.

[DoninJoisey]

As Cheney said, "so?" So it's dishonest. Doesn't bother the Clintons. Screw the electorate, screw the party, but get in power!

[bish66]

See, you have to understand that this is the candidacy of the Democratic PARTY, as in PARTY, 'a political organization that you can vote for in elections'.

The primary thing is just to get people involved, to test candidates and subjects and themes, slogans, stump speeches, raise money and make headline news. You can win the largest number of pledged delegates by winning all the red states in a big fashion and losing the blue ones and still be the candidate with the largest number of delegates. That would even work in a winner takes all situation. Look at the last election, it all came down to Ohio.

So, let's say that Obama wins all the red states and Clinton the blue ones: Who has the best chances to win in November? Clinton who won states such as Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, California and New York?
Or Obama with his wins in Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi and Idaho? Democrats are outnumbered in those states, and even if Obama comes close, he will win no cigar for these states. Will he win the blue states regardlessly? As the most liberal senator in politics, he failed to win Massachusetts, with both Senators at his side, the Governor behind him, money in his hands and a huge grassroots organisation at his command and Clinton beat him with 15 points.

[zeiben]

Like I said. The voters must have a chance to be heard, so they can be ignored by the political calculus of people who somehow know better.

Your point about the "big states" seems as idiotic to me as the contradiction about MI and FL. You really think NY and California will vote McCain? Dream on.

In any case, he's winning all over the place and she's losing like a big fat loser. superdelegates are jumping ship. game over.

[sp3akthetruth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

[rowvee]

Thank you governor. Yes, let's uphold democracy. The presidency should be open to anyone who has enough money to buy it, right?

[RedBirdy]

Well, that would give Obama the edge, right? He is out spending and raising more funds.

[geobushono]

....and they call themselves Democrats!!
Wake up People. Millionaires do not represent the Working Class.
Think about the Clintons and the EMPATHETIC anxiety they feel at the gas pump....
When you go to the food store, imagine the clintons fretting over the food inflation.

WE Democrats need a Party that represents US, not the millionaires in the Government­..........­....it's the same old 'trickle down theory'...­........re­packaged by dems.

[Mike O.]

Then Obama doesn't represent you either. Like all liberals you are displaying your willful ignorance of the facts:

Obama is a millionaire.

[mamacat]

Sounds like the DNC really screwed things up.

[spatso]

It is even more complex than having just messed up on Florida and Michigan. On the one hand, the Clintons and their group of political insiders, including Corzine, offer to put up the cash to purchase redos in Florida and Michigan. Yet, they do not pay the health care coverage of their own workers. It is this arrogance of entitlement, the belief that they can just rewrite or ignore the rules that pushes the Clintons and Corzine beyond basic common democratic reason. Corzine's proposition is more than merely manipulative. If you remember it was Clinton and her group of insiders that first and arrogantly declared that " Florida was not going to count." I would suggest to Mr Corzine that if you cannot play by the rule of law, if you believe that personal ambitions can be an end to justify any means of triumph than you have no ground to argue for the good of democracy.

[dax49]

why didn't he raise hell and write articles when the republican legeslatures of theser states put this mess in motion. too late to get self righteous now

[joh]

Obama supporters need to see the light. Read the Detroit News article April 7, 2008, Michigan may vote for McCain in the Fall due to this debacle. (Michigan has not gone for a republican president for 20 years.) Obama may win the democratic primary by refusing to give Florida and Michigan a chance to be heard, but that decision could lose him the general election. You need to look at the long view.

[ghostwriter5]

I agree--even if you put all the moral arguments aside, the party needs to be practical unless they want to hand the election to McCain.

[Trinidad707]

If it were winner take all..Clint­on would have already had this thing in the bag! and Obama people who think Caucuses are like actiual popular votes..ple­eze

This will again be a rigged election if Michigan and Florida are not counted. whoever heard of a person winning all the big states like California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, Michigan and not winning the presidency­...That is crazy...an­d i think the way they did this delegate thing was wrong.....­as someone could win a state, but only get half the delegates.­..thats Whacked!..­.like the Obama people think Alabama and Mississippi and the teeny states should decide an election

[JonStewart4President]

Oh please dismiss all of us caucus states, which btw, our collective electoral votes in the general election are a lot more than FL and MI...combi­ned. But please, be like the Hillary's campaign and insult us some more so that our latte sipping, birkenstock wearing, Prius driving, trust fund selves who don't really want a Dem. President, because we're all rich, so we don't need a President, just a reason to complain. Because of course our states and votes don't matter. No please, don't count all of us (which again, our electoral votes FAR outweigh MI and FL combined) and instead continue to make us not want to be as invested as possible in electing Democrats, even if we don't necessarily elect a Dem POTUS. And please continue to talk about changing the minds of the elected delegates representing the populations we bothered to come out and vote for. Because that will really make us want to come out and vote for Hillary in the GE.

Yes, please, let's denigrate as many states as possible and not care about all the other races on the ticket come November.

Brilliant strategy. The kind that's won us the White House for the past 8 years. Oh, whoops.

[whizkid]

Jon
So you live where?
Wyoming.
idaho.
Great taters.
Worthless in November.

[JonStewart4President]

Oh and another thing, it's such a complete and utterly stupid argument ot make that someone who wins the primary and therefore electoral vote of ANY state, somehow means that state would carry to election. I mean, McCain carried California over his Rethug opponent, guess how likely it is that CA will go Rethug in a POSTUS general election and not, the first 2 don't count.

History has time and again shown us that someone who win the Dem primary, won't necessarily win in the general election, so all this talk about "electoral college" voting, is just plain and outright dumb.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

No one is suggesting that Obama won't win CA or NY. He would.

But Obama claimimg that he will win any of he RED states where he won the primaries is just as crazy.

The difference is to look at the CLOSE states like PA, OH, FL, MI, WI

Current polls show Obama barely winning in Mass over McCain. But Clinton has a HUGE lead over McCain there. Any dem that can't win by a huge margin in Mass, is not doing too well.

[bish66]

True, but while there are red state, there are no blue states, just bluish ones (unless you count Washington DC). Over the past 50 years, all states have been red from time to time.

In 1964 and from 1992 onwards, California voted Democrat. Kennedy lost the state, so did Carter, Dukakis and many others. Last election, the margin was some 9%. Not that much, if you ask me.

Clinton did well in California, because she has lots of supporters in the big cities, the rural areas, among the Hispanics and Asians and among the women and the elderly. She will defend these core groups against McCain.
Hispanics will not vote for Obama, but might vote for McCain, who has the endorsement of Schwarzenegger. Obama does poorly in rural areas, among Asians and Hispanics and this does not bode well for California. Blacks and liberals don't vote for McCain, no matter who runs for the Democratic party. Hispanics are not so loyal..

Since you bring up the electoral college, most of the states won by Obama are deep red, outside the 10% margin. They account for his current lead, but they make clear that he is a flawed candidate, because he can't win the Democratic bases, except the liberals and the blacks. Winning the popular vote in November is worth nothing.

[JohnnySorrow]

And if the popular vote elected presidents, Al Gore would have won in 2000.
And if we selected candidates by height, Barack would have this thing in the bag.
And if wishes were fishes, the world would be an ocean.

So what?

Why does the Clinton camp (and her uniformed suppoerters) continue to try and use criterion that are NOT the manner in which we select a candidate to prove she should be the nominee? And why are caucuses not like "actual votes?"

This is the most schizophrenic argument I've ever heard. "We will fight to count the votes of every voter in Michigan and Florida...­but screw the caucus states. Those votes are not democratic. And, oh yeah, the non-traditional Democratic states...t­hose votes don't matter either.

Why didn't the Clinton campaign express concern about these things until AFTER she found herself behind? You don't think this could be more about her than democracy, do you?

No way. That would be insincere and we know Hillary is as honest and authentic as they come...rig­ht?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

You are right, presidents are elected by the electoral college.

But, if you use the elctoral college map, Hillary is ahead of Obama.

[JMorgan]

"and Obama people who think Caucuses are like actiual popular votes..ple­eze"

Hillary Rodham Clinton is against caucuses, unless it's the Democratic National Convention caucus. Unless it's superdelegates (or pledged delegates that she's poached) overriding the votes of the electorate at the Democratic National Convention.

That's what the Democratic Convention is, a great big caucus.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

And Obama is against Caucuses when you use their small numbers to add into the popular vote.

YOu can't have it both ways.

[buske]

I'm sure a lot of us don't really like the convention, because, the risk is great that the DNC will try to run some sort of coup d'etat and make Al Gordo the Democratic Party candidate. Now, how democratic would that be? I don't think Obama would be so happy about that idea either.

[Mattie]

many people will feel this election isn't legitimate if FL & MI aren't counted. Why is Mr Obama so afraid to let democracy work, and why won't he endorse a recount. How can anyone support a man, who is trying to suppress the vote of millions.

[Obamamo]

This is kind of rhetoric that boils my blood. Get this through your head! Before the voting started, both the Hil-liar Campaign and Obama's agreed that Michigan and Florida would not be seated or counted. Now that Hil-LIAR is loosing, because her true colours are finally showing, you people want to outright steal the nomination. You make me sick!

PS: If HiL-LIAR steals the nomination we will make 1968 Democratic convention look more civil.

[NorVaGal]

Many people will feel this election isn't legitimate if FL & MI ARE counted. Why is Mrs. Clinton so afraid to let democracy work, and why doesn't she play by the rules that she agreed to play by. How can anyone endorse a woman who is trying to overturn the votes of millions who went to the polls and played by the rules?

[lbrillante]

About 'including' Florida and Michigan voter turnout was supressed because voters were told that their votes would not count. The DNC and the candidates agreed that these elections would be considered invalid. INVALID ELECTIONS BEING COUNTED are grounds for me to consider a candidate invalid. THERE SHOULD BE NO TALK OF COUNTING TAINTED ELECTIONS. REVOTES ARE JUST AS PROBLEMATIC LEGALLY... So pointing at the Obama campaign and suggesting that he is interfering with democracy is pure SPIN and NOTHING ELSE.
AND I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THE POPULAR VOTE...YOU HAVE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN CAUCUSES AND PRIMARIES.­.. THEY ARE BOTH TRANSLATED INTO DELEGATES SO THAT THEY ARE COUNTED AS EVENLY REPRESENTA­TIVE... COUNTING THE POPULAR VOTE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS UNDEMOCRATIC!
Hillary Clinton lacks integrity, she has demonstrated poor judgement and poor leadership. Her campaign demonstrates to me exactly what I do not want in another president.­.. been there, done that, no more please!! Senator Obama is a man I trust. He fills our country with hope and is ready to try to bring a new style of leadership to Washington. I don't expect him to be perfect. I just expect him to do his best to live up to his own ideals. I think that will make him one of the best leaders of our time. I am looking forward to seeing Senator Obama inaugurated next January as our next president and the american people will be thinking 'Yes We Can"!

[whizkid]

liberace

So after you work hard your employer tells you the check he hands you is no good.
You don't try to cash it?

Baby, I'd cash it quicker than you can say Jack Frost.

[JohnnySorrow]

...and your employer would take it right back out of your next paycheck, if not fire you for trying to cash a check they told you not to.

[jarotra]

"For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted."

This is pure BS when it comes to national primaries. If this were the case, all primaries would be held on the same day, with all votes weighted equally.

Instead, we have a series of state contests to give candidates a chance to sell themselves to voters.

Oversimplified for illustration, each state stands in line with a bag of delegates (NOT VOTES) for various candidates.

The number of delegates is finite, therefore the number needed to win is a simple majority, 50% + 1

The states vote in order, a sequence determined by the national party. If a simple majority is reached at any point in the line, that candidate is the nominee. The voting continues, but any choice is gone.

Who says every vote must be counted? Who says every vote WON'T be counted? The counting has always continued to completion, but there is NO guarantee of any degree of influence. You can vote in an early primary for a candidate that drops out, you don't get a re-do. You can jump in line and have your delegates stripped of influence, forcing a negotiated settlement, but don't say you need a re-do because you changed your mind back again.

And one more thing - please don't' pretend these fat cats of the state parties are the brave, noble defenders of democracy.