and for a fractional delegate? If that's what Bernie spends Kentucky's money think, think of what he'll spend the country's money on.

He had a right to ask for the recanvass.

So if we're in a close election in the general between a Repub and a Dem, with the Repub currently leading by slim #, you would say "no recount" because it costs money?

Imply he sued...very disingenuous of you...bye bye

Don't you think the post's title should reflect what you're talking about?

There's a huge difference between a tight race in the General and a tight race in a primary where delegates are propotional. It was a publicity stunt that was never going to change anything.

Kentucky uses electronic voting, so they just had to push a button and call in the results.

n/t

How can you trust the Secretary of State? Grimes is biased!

(or so I've been told)

Washington "caucus v primary" results?

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/735313329187618818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

But it is perplexing why anyone would object to having an accurate vote count. So it was off by about 13 - could have been off by much more as it obviously wasn't correct.

why would they "notice" this?

Had things gone his way, it would not have affected his delegate count by more than one. ONE is not going to solve his problems.

I think he did it to distract from the hideous news from Washington--that when people actually get to VOTE, and not swarm and bully, Hillary wins. Funny how she's not talking about how the system is "rigged" -- if WA went by primary results, she'd have won that contest and taken many more delegates.

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/735313329187618818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Personally I couldn't be bothered for postage or to swing by a drop box. The primary served no purpose per state party rules.

The caucuses are the only thing that counts toward the Democrat delegate allotment for WA state. In other words, WA Democrats might as well have flushed that ballot down the toilet because it did not count toward anything. Clearly more of Bernie's voters were aware of this reality.

the will of hundreds of thousands of voters?



It doesn't have to "count toward anything." Sanders can have those few delegates--they will not help him. He has already lost.

It simply illustrates the utter FARCE that is the caucus system!

Look at the early Republcan caucus results from the past few cycles.

or a disabled relative needing care at home. They disenfranchise shift workers, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and frail, people who can't get child or elder care, people who don't have reliable transportation, etc.

It's no accident that more than six times the number of "caucus voters" voted in that primary for the person who didn't win the caucus.

If anything comes of this election, my home is that mail - in/dropbox primary ballots become the norm in most if not all states, and caucuses are struck from the process as being disenfranchising.

Their purpose is to select delegates for the state, and to elect party leaders.

Caucuses are fun

People didn't have to go to the caucus to have their vote count. They did not have to take the day off or wait in line or listen to speeches. They had the option to fill out a form available online and mail or fax or email it back to have their vote actually count for something. If you claim that these primary results indicate that Clinton actually has more support in WA than Bernie (which I do not believe), then how can you argue with the statement that they clearly did not know how to make their vote count? I agree that it is incredibly disheartening that hundreds of thousands of more people voted on something that does not count for anything than actually participated when it does count. That should be addressed, though I personally don't think that it would have changed the proportion of delegates by much. What I don't understand is why you think that is funny? Either they were misinformed, ill informed, or simply didn't care enough to participate in the caucus and to me that's no laughing matter.

People stayed away because the caucus system is onerous, makes representation difficult, and sucks.

See how it works for Hillary to have won the higher-turn out primary now!!!

You may not like it, but Sanders now has to drop WA--and Nebraska from his list.

This was reported by the Seattle Times. Clearly people in the know did not bother to vote. WA Democrats have argued that it is an approximately $11.5 million waste of taxpayer money since the party does not use the results. Additionally, the ballots required that you officially declare a party allegiance. According to King5 this is only the 5th time in state history that that has been required. Meaning that no one who had not already been represented in the caucus (i.e. independents and republicans wishing to switch over) were represented in the Democrat primary results unless they wished to lie and claim they are Democrats. The bottom line is that Democrats had already voted for Bernie and this primary was meaningless for them. I personally know many Bernie supporters who chose not to vote in the primaries because they knew that it did not matter. Bernie already won by over 40 points and the primary did nothing to change or diminish that.

There is no way that anyone with a sense of justice could opine that 26K loudmouths trump 719K people casting ballots.

No way.



He can have the votes, he desperately needs them--but he didn't "win" them, and this primary result proves it.

A lot of people didn't go because of the toxic atmosphere.

What you describe as 'toxic', would be more accurately described as people passionately advocating for their preferred candidate and the principles they believe in. Just because most of the people there did not support your chosen candidate does not make it 'toxic'. As to that passion, I believe people should be passionate about who they want to be in charge of representing the future of the country.

2008 was bad enough. I've been going to these since 1992 and I can tell you that the tone has steadily deteriorated.

I just want to cast my vote. I don't want to listen to people hostile to my candidate, and I don't want to listen to haranguing speeches.

My friends who went who support Bernie had a good old time. The Hillary people (those who went) not so much. Voting should absolutely not be a worse experience for some than for others. I didn't go this year (more because it was held Easter weekend and we couldn't be there), but I did send in an affidavit.

Rip off...like Burlington college

are- fairness for me but not for thee.
sad.

There is corruption in the Republican counties, but it is nickel dime vote buying in low vote down ticket races. It seems the county sheriff races are prime real estate.

Large scale fraud in top ticket races is unheard off.

I've been a precinct judge since the days of the mechanical voting machines.

Now can we get to the really important task of keeping the liar Trump from snowing the country?

Of course this is not true. Nobody in power even so much as hints there could be the slightest problem with counting the votes in a black box that cannot be and/or never is audited and the vote totals checked for accuracy by COUNTING THE PAPER BALLOTS BY HAND.

None of the machines are connected to the Internet.

The seals are checked for tampering, and storage is under several layers of security.

So far the machines have not returned any surprises.

like making sure nobody uses a memory card to transfer data from the machines to the central tabulators

like having guards stationed at the factory to make sure that no programs are being inserted making it easier for insiders to actuate certain changes in the vote count by using a USB disc or thumb disc and in two seconds re-programming everything

like making sure that any of those who program the computer or service the computer or maintain the computer's quality of performance do not slip in programs changing the way the computer will tally votes

like making sure that the vote totals are not shifted to a "man in the middle" as the vote totals were shifted in 04 in OH so that a guy named Connell at Smart Tech in Chattanooga can change the results and Kerry can lose by about the same percentages that he was winning moments before

like . . . but do I have to go on? There are probably 100,000 ways a computer can be programmed to criminally miscount the vote so that the wrong person is proclaimed as the winner.

The only way to assure that the result is a real and honest result is to make sure, first, that people vote ON PAPER BALLOTS AND THESE BALLOTS ARE RETAINED AFTER THE SO-CALLED RESULTS ARE ANNOUNCED. Then, EVERY ELECTION, a certain percentage of those paper ballots from randomly selected precincts MUST BE HAND-COUNTED AND THE RESULTS COMPARED WITH THE SO-CALLED RESULTS. Third, if there are significant differences between the machine results and the hand-counted results, the THE WHOLE DAMNED ELECTION SHOULD BE RECOUNTED BY HAND AND THE REAL WINNER ANNOUNCED.

The results were about the same and the delegate count didn't change.

Good ol' Hi11ary is running a heckuva campaign.




#NotMeUs

#BernieOrBust

#DropOutHillary

It's the reality deniers who can't seem to accept that she will be the nominee. Her millions of voters count just as much as Sanders'. There's also the fact that she has more of them than he does.

Congratulations to Ms. Clinton. Happy the election results were confirmed even though I don't like Clinton. Election results should not be in question and when they are close they need to be confirmed. Who can't or doesn't want to understand that?

And I got no problem with that.

And the recanvass confirms that Hillary won.

But congratulations to Bernie on the 13 votes he picked up.

Bernie had this recanvass just to increase the accuracy of the results, essentially squeezing a few drops out of it.

He was never expecting to change the results.

All the Hillary supporters gloating about this are doing no favors for anyone, except me. Because it's hillaryious.

are simply thrilled.

over a non issue smh

"The unofficial winner of Kentucky's Democratic presidential primary remains Hillary Clinton..." Winner is yada yada hey make up your mind. official unofficial. don't use both terms if it's legally unofficial until May 31st use that term. not both. Or your gonna make it look tainted.

know Clinton's virtual tie was legit.

When you have a SoS shilling for a candidate, what do you expect?
This is also the SoS that declined to look into potential election fraud by our new douche-bag Gov.

Pathetic.