Good times.
Don't see how that can happen again though
Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.
Obama won the most votes without Michigan, where he wasn't on the ballot since he didn't break the DNC rules.
He OPTED to take his name off the ballot and he still received delegates, so your argument is moot. Hey, my name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, either. Why didn't I receive some delegates? The DNC just assumed that all the "uncommitted" votes cast in Michigan were for Obama and so he got some delegates because of that. It's not really a democracy if all 50 states, DC, and the territories did not get a say. And yes, I would say the same if it had been Idaho, Illinois, or Georgia that had "violated" the DNC "rules." You shouldn't punish the voters because of their state leaders' mistakes.
Hey, don't be mad at the DNC for announcing they would strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. If they hadn't done that, Obama stays on the Michigan ballot and wins the primary popular vote nationally.
Good times.
Don't see how that can happen again though
Yeah it's really good in a democracy where the candidate who receives the most votes still loses.
That was a travesty. What was done to Michigan and Florida were a travesty. Pure voter disenfranchisement
They were given delegates in the end. Iowa and New Hampshire probably can't be stripped of their arbitrary privilege unless the parties do it together.
More importantly, what does any of this have to do with 2016? Besides GOP leadership obviously wishing they could restrict their nominating process to the OP's list of all blue states (except Texas).
