While that might be a good idea for Nevada, Arizona, and Massachusetts, Iowa will never go along with that as they are absolutely determined to be the first in the nation caucus, and it's hard to imagine them giving up their sacred caucus system any time in the next thousand years or so.

Similarly, New Hampshire is it engraved in stone somewhere that they get to be the first in the nation primary, and they're not about to give that up.

And for what my opinion is worth, I don't think a nationwide primary is a good idea at all. The nice thing about this current system is that people get to see the candidates and make decisions and change their mind as the season proceeds.

They weren't kept away.

Will amend OP to reflect that idea.

voter suppression which is a real and very serious problem.

Each of the states I listed had those.

Revotes are expensive and will not be ordered in the cases you listed. The pro se idiot who filed the Mass. lawsuit against Bill Clinton is going to find out that federal judges are not known for tolerating silly people trying to use the federal courts for bogus claims

which was an unjust result(in the second round)that happened to benefit the candidate I support.

You do know that there is a credentials committee at the national convention who gets to review this.

Why Mass? I hope that you are not relying on that silly lawsuit, The idiot bernie bros could not find a lawyer to files that silly lawsuitt in federal court. No attorney wanted to be sanctioned. Federal judges are not known for tolerating stupidity. Here are some facts that will guarantee that the lawyer filing this case will be sanctioned http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/04/bill-clinton-massachusetts-election-law/

and there wasn't.

The petition was horrible and if a law student drafted that petition, then they will soon flunk out of law school. If the pro se idiot who filed that law suit is in law school and does not flunk out, being sanctioned by a federal judge will keep her from taking the bar in most jurisdictions

nothing in it about a lawsuit.

Also, the end of the campaign is two months. Primaries can't be thrown together in one month.

It most likely wouldn't change the results in AZ(though they might be somewhat closer).

For all we know, HRC might do BETTER in those states in a revote.

activity materially affected the outcome.

there's no time left for do overs. primaries take months and months to plan.

not only that, but doing an election over means voiding every single vote that was cast.

This is like the Republicans who want to put an asterisk by Obama's name in the history books. If they can't win they try to delegitimize.

The ordering of a revote is a very rare remedy that will not happen in this case. I volunteer in voter protection efforts and have worked with the Texas Democratic Party on vote id issues. I have been following the Texas voter id case very closely and that case would not give you much hope for this remedy. The DOJ sued Texas on the voter id law. Even though 7 federal judges have ruled against the Texas voter id law, we were stuck with in during the March 1 Texas primary. The DOJ and the Texas Party tried to get the 5th circuit to rule on this law before the primary but the court ignored their filings. See http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/SupplementalAuthoritiesFiledbyAppelleesMsImaniClarkandTexasLeagueofYoungVotersEducationFund1.pdf

Right now, the DOJ and the private plaintiffs are asking the SCOTUS to lift the stay of the 5th Cir See
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey-ApplicationToVacateStay03252016.pdf In addition to the DOJ, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys, Chad Dunn, also happens to be the Texas Democratic Party outside counsel (Chad is representing Congressman Marc Veasey in this case)

It is not that easy to fight voter suppression. The remedy of a revote is not going to happen

But if you'd like to convince me, tell me which of those results Bernie Sanders has challenged.

My candidate may have benefited from misinformation(for which our campaign was clearly blameless) which seems to have reduced turnout among HRC supporters.

Riddle me this; why has there not been an official challenge by the Sanders camp in any of these states? So far it's just twitter and blogger hysteria.

If Sanders generally feels he was shafted in a stat election, ten let him step up and file accordingly.

And I mentioned Nevada BECAUSE this weekend their were irregularities that worked in Sanders' favor. Nevada and the other three states are the only primary results about which any degree on controversy exist.. All Sanders victories are indisputable and won fair and square...we know this because every state in which Bernie prevailed was a state in which the party leadership was at best neutral(in Vermont, Howard Dean has a bit more power within the state Dems than Bernie)and in general strongly anti-Sanders.