against. Too bad all Democrats don't support free and honest elections.

low information people. "Look over there, Republicons are bad and Democrats are good. That's all you need to know."

The war we are engaged is between the classes; The Ruling 1% (Clintons) and the working and poor 99% (represented by Sanders). Not all Democrats are good. Some have sold their souls to The Ruling Class.

Or the most magnificent incompetence by State and Party officials ever.

.....you do realize that more people turned out yesterday in Arizona than any presidential primary in Arizona history, don't you?

Here are the REAL numbers:

933,730 voted yesterday. Here are the historical primary voter turnout back to 1998 (presidential years highlighted):

http://www.azsos.gov/elections/voter-registration-historical-election-data

Primary Election Information 2000-2014

Election Year Registered Voters Ballots Cast Voter Turnout (%)

2014 3,247,146 877,270 27.02
2012 3,100,575 870,875 28.09
2010 3,102,876 933,650 30.09
2008 2,799,390 638,348 22.80
2006 2,533,308 584,526 23.07
2004 2,440,144 602,888 24.71
2002 2,207,450 557,437 25.25
2000 2,042,462 486,836 23.84
1998 1,921,565 377,855 19.66

Was that also a conspiracy against democracy?

use Provisional Ballots through NO fault of their own, but due to " glitches", "errors", etc? Then the answer is YES.

in Utah? Not that Arizona was called early? Are you saying the results of the Utah caucuses are illegitimate?

Voting/Election Fraud/Disenfranchisement wherever it occurs. If it happened in Utah, that's fucking awful and unacceptable. It absolutely happened HERE, yesterday...in MULTIPLE ways.

People here argue that votes in the South shouldn't count at all, I find the outrage selective.

Yes, the lines were huge in Utah yesterday, one a mile long. Utah polling places ran out of both ballots and provisional ballots so they had to xerox provisional ballots.

From what I read about Arizona, the longest line and place where provisional ballots were used was in a Hispanic precinct in Maricopa County. That tells me that more of them were likely Clinton supporters, which according to some here means their votes are so inferior as to be illegitimate.

I don't live in AZ. I don't vote for Secretary of State there, and I have exactly nothing to do with how elections proceed there. So you have no business getting angry at me over something that is the responsibility of your own state.

If your concern is about voting rights generally, that would be a nice change of pace, since I have read far more about how votes in great swaths of the nation shouldn't count and how those voters are too stupid to make democratic decisions that some assume only they and those who think exactly like them are fit to make.

I hope, then, you aren't among those who argued Eric Holder did absolutely nothing of value as Attorney General since he devoted a great deal of attention to enforcing the voting rights act, something I saw described here as "crumbs."

than those discounting the South. Then there are those who've looked the other way as DWS and the DNC attempt to limit the process to benefit their chosen Candidate. It is what it is, and most recognize that...

The concern has nothing to do with voting rights and everything to do with promoting Bernie.

Considering Bernie's campaign manager's current plan is to turn pledged delegates from primaries that have already voted, it's clear that the will of the people is seen as something to overcome, not abide by. You go on complaining that a few people here have dared to suggest that a candidate who trails by over 2.5 million votes should drop out, when you are supporting a candidate whose current strategy involves overturning the results of popular elections by flipping pledged delegates. I do not believe anyone who values voting rights could possibly support such a tactic. But dissent. That's what needs to be done away with. Stop people from talking about subversive stuff like delegate math and vote totals.