with this comment and the core of the meaning
"The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative. "
Are you trying to tell me that the primary votes that "didn't count" had low turn out? I totally disagree!
Try taking a look at WA state. More than 3 times the amount of people voted in the primary compared to the caucuses. Anyone who thinks ALL of those people, who STILL wanted to voice their vote no matter that it did not count, could have or should have caucused is a fool. There is NO WAY, it was already a huge cluster F and would have been total anarchy if all those people had showed up.
I don't want to hear the false argument that "people who caucused did not vote in the primary", etc. There are people that did BOTH (like they did in TX .. I know their F'd up double vote system counts), there are people that only caucused and there are people that only voted in the primary.
I would bet that MOST old people and disabled people did not caucus. Yes there were some of both in my caucus but some also left early because it was to CROWDED and some of the O supporters became a little too pushy.
I'm not going to fight or argue but you must admit the election after the election is not a good predictor of voter intent.
That's all I was saying.
And yes turnout was small compared to the trend in other primary's this season.
I still disagree with your last point and partially agree with your first point .. and that would go for TX also.
Deal? :)
Fair enough, reasonable people can agree to disagree :)
