REGRESSIVELEFTVoter suppression. Hillary is far from leading in popularity.
"That said, these errors are not really signs that our elections are rigged.
With Brooklyn, the Board of Elections purged more than 100,000 voters just ahead of the election. This shouldn’t happen: Purges should happen well ahead of an election.
But did it affect the race? Not really. The people who get “purged” from voter rolls are “inactive” voters — people who haven’t voted in two straight elections and didn’t return postcards seeking to verify their address. These are generally people who moved, or have died.
I just received my first postcard from the state of Washington last week. I assume I’ll be moved to “inactive” status, since I was lazy and didn’t respond, and then I’ll eventually be removed.
So realistically, most of the people who were purged were not going to vote. They probably don’t live in Brooklyn anymore.
And the people who were purged in Brooklyn were probably likelier to be supporters of Clinton than Sanders. Brooklyn voted for Clinton by 20 points. Most inactive voters are older (after all, a 20-year-old hasn’t had the opportunity to skip two consecutive federal elections).
Arizona, like a lot of Western states, is transitioning to conducting most of its elections by mail. Washington, Oregon and Colorado have fully made this transition. Arizona and California are in sort of the next tier, where big majorities of voters are on permanent absentee rolls.
In the 2014 Democratic primary, more than 80 percent voted early. As in-person voting has dropped, Arizona has scaled back the number of Election Day polling places. This created a big problem in 2016: It turned out that a lot more people showed up to vote on Election Day. The lines were huge. Now, did this inconvenience a lot of voters? Yes. Was it bad election administration? Yes. Did people leave the lines? Certainly. Did it change the result? No.
The turnout was healthy — after all, most people vote absentee, and more people voted than in 2008. Clinton
http://www.newschoolers.com%2Fforum%2Fthread%2F809447%2FSANDERS-2016%3Fpage%3D56%26utm_source%3Dalert%26utm_medium%3Dweb%26utm_campaign%3Dalerts&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click]won by a big margin[/url]. It’s not plausible to suggest that Sanders lost anywhere near that kind of support thanks to long lines. The math just doesn’t work, given how high the turnout was and Sanders’s small four-point edge among Election Day voters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/upshot/bernie-sanders-and-rigged-elections-sometimes-you-just-lose.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJrWw74iAnO&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click&_r=0
You were saying? You can't blame every loss on voter suppression.
I am not denying there are inherent issues with the system, it is quite evident. However, to believe there is a vast conspiracy between both the GOP and Democrats to make sure Sanders' does not win is laughable. If anything, the GOP would screw over Hillary as they see Sanders' as an easier target.
Also, do not forget, it is the state governments that control voter laws, not the RNC or DNC.
