|
|
 Originally Posted by will641
Originally Posted by vqc
Originally Posted by will641
Originally Posted by gabe
Originally Posted by vqc
I think by definition they were disenfranchised (or will be disenfranchised).
not being allowed to help choose a party's candidate is far from being disenfranchised
they took their votes away....how is that not being disenfranchised?
I think he means disenfranchised from the actual election.
When I said disenfranchised, I meant for the process of choosing their parties candidate. As far as I know disenfranchisement can occur for anything that requires voting.
oh okay. yeah they obv arent disenfranchised from the general election, but i was thinking about this earlier today. the problem is when you dont include those states, it kind of has a rippling effect. for the record, i have no proof of this, im just stating what i think. so say hillary wins florida and michigan by 10 points each, which is a very good victory. thats fantastic momentum for her campaign, and who knows how that wouldve changed the outcome of the primaries, because momentum is pretty big.
Does anyone know why the parties dont just run all the primaries on teh same day?
|
Reply With Quote