Don't disenfranchise the LARGEST STATE IN THE UNION. The most demographically representative state

[onecaliberal]

agree with Le Taz Hot completely!

I haven't voted yet! This contest is only about 24% over!

Why are democrats trying to STOP people from voting? This will backfire. You go ahead and tell people you don't care what their choice is in the primary, but shut the fuck up about it when they don't bother to vote in November.

[FreakinDJ]

1. NorCal here

[dana_b]

40. me too!!

I will vote how I damn well want and they will not disenfranchise me, my friends or family.

[Hortensis]

58. Where do you people get off claiming

Anyone is rying to keep you from voting? Of all the nerve! I am a native Californian, and in 40 years of voting I never made such a contemptibly dishonest claim.

Want your votes counted before the winner becomes obvious? Insist CA's primary with its 500+ (!!!!!!) delegates be moved up. Then malcontentss in the rest of the nation can complain you're "disenfranchising" them just because they don't like knowing who will win before they vote.

[bigwillq]

2. Let One vote! let Ca Vote! Let Liberal Vote!

[brooklynite]

3. Name someone who is stopping you from voting...

Name someone who is stopping any candidate from running...

[onecaliberal]

4. Central Ca here!

[MineralMan]

5. Any voter in California can participate.

As far as I know, the primary election will be held as scheduled. If you live in California, you most certainly should turn out and vote for your preferred candidate. I'd never say anything else. Everyone should vote in every election.

[TDale313]

11. Calling a race before people have voted supresses votes.

It's why we don't want the media calling races based on exit polls before the polls close and why generally we balk if they call a presidential race before polls even close on the West Coast.

This thing ain't over and I'm tired of people pushing the narrative that it is. Let the process play out.

[MineralMan]

15. The process will, indeed, play out.

There is always a possibility that a majority of delegates will exist before the last primary state holds its caucuses or election. That has always been true.

In some years, like 2012, the result was determined before the first caucus happened, in fact.

This year, all of us can follow the pledged delegate count as the primary season goes on. We may know who the nominee will be before, say, California holds its primary. That's something that only the party can correct, really, by scheduling primary events at different times. In some states, of course, the primary date is set by that state's legislature, too.

In every case, though, the convention elects the nominee. There have even been times when the nominee was no longer able to run by the time of the convention. In those cases, the convention decides, regardless of how the primaries went.

It's an imperfect system, no doubt. It is, however, the system that will decide in 2016.

[treestar]

59. people need to quit calling it suppression when it's their own decision

you can still affect the margin, especially California, and that lets the winners know where they stand somewhat.

[hack89]

6. Who is telling you not to vote? Nt

[LonePirate]

7. Did I miss the announcement that people weren't being allowed to vote?

I wasn't aware of any states or Congress had recently passed bills cancelling the primary or general elections.

[sufrommich]

9. No,this is hyperbole at it's finest.

Kos and DU will not allow Hillary bashing after Sanders is mathematically out of the race,somehow that equals taking away the right to vote.

[Agschmid]

19. ...

[JonLeibowitz]

29. Kos does not have a threshold of mathematical elimination

That is false. Actually they have a threshold where even if the primary were uncontested and Hillary won 100% of all pledged delegates up to March 15, she would not have mathematically clinched a permanent lead in the pledged delegate lead. less than 50% of pledged delagates are assigned before Kos enforces their rule.

Your post is simply incorrect.

[treestar]

61. It undermines the enthusiasm argument

that people are so exited by Bernie they will get out and vote. Turns out they won't if its inconvenient in some way , if Bill Clinton is there, if there's a line (which there would be if Bernie really did turn out all those voters), they can't ask for absentee ballots if the day is bad for them, the day is always wrong and other complaints.

[Jenny_92808]

13. It is about....

MSM misrepresenting where we are at in the voting process. They pro-port that it is over and Hillary will win.

It is NOT over.....BERNIE will win! Hill won the red states and we will be moving to the blue states, where Bernie will win.

[Karma13612]

43. I just watched the NBC evening news and you are right about the MSM.

They are saying things like:

Bernie is hoping for a surge or a come-back.

Then they show the delegate count and don't mention that the huge gap is because they are including the superdels.

It is absolutely stupid.

And, to answer the other comments thatmany are asking: Who said you can't vote?:

No one is telling us we can't vote, only that our vote is meaningless.
And when you tell us it will be over on 3/15, you are sending a message of inevitability. And with Hillary way ahead, there is also the 'momentum-factor'. For the umpteenth time, the superdels don't count until the convention, and Bernie's better states are still ahead of us.

Anyway, the MSM is certainly not helping. And openly silencing Bernie and his supporters.

[metroins]

53. Shouldn't you be upset

At your state and the DNC for choosing to hold it so late?

I mean seriously, the R side will likely be decided before then. Even if it wasn't Sanders or Clinton, it would likely be decided by then.

It's literally just math.

[Karma13612]

60. Absolutely I'm upset. But

Until we have one primary day across the whole country, we are stuck with this.

And the earnestness of the Pro-Hillary camp/media/DNC,ETC to just crown her is not only inappropriate, it is undemocratic.

Unless every vote is cast in the primary season, you pretty much do not get a fair representation of who the preferred nominee is. The country is Not homogeneous through-out.

A sampling is not representative.

[George II]

94. Clinton won the blue states of Iowa, Massachusetts, and Virginia....and Sanders won the red states..

...of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska.

[BreakfastClub]

22. I was just thinking the same thing. LOL The injustice!!! nt

[Logical]

50. Reading complicated for you? Nt

[LonePirate]

52. I understand what disenfranchisement means. You, and others here on DU, apparently do not.

Nobody is disenfranchising the OP, unless it is a red state imposing new voting ID requirements on the OP. Yet the OP wasn't talking about. The OP was being hysterical over nothing.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. Our goal:

Deliver every single County in the San Joaquin Valley to Bernie. That's all we're going to be doing for the next 2-1/2 months. That's our focus.

[onecaliberal]

18. ^^^That right there^^^

[Kaleva]

10. Can you name the people who are preventing you from voting?

[onecaliberal]

28. You DONT call it for a candidate when 54 states haven't voted. Spare me the reply.

Off to the dust bin.

[NCTraveler]

36. .

"28. You DONT call it for a candidate when 54 states haven't voted. Spare me the reply."

What?

[Kaleva]

42. That is funny.

The flag hanging off my front porch is missing a bunch of stars.

[NanceGreggs]

54. It was announced earlier this morning.

The four newly-formed states are Berntana, Sandconsin, Bernexico and Sandofornia.

In a related news story, Hillary is already polling ahead of Bernie in all four states.

[ismnotwasm]

69. Lmao!

[mcar]

84. ..

[Bleacher Creature]

87. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Bernata will be decided by coin-flip, and the other three will only allow voters who are personally escorted into the voting booth by Bill Clinton.

[Quayblue]

106. ....

[bravenak]

51. I am trying to understand the math...

[William769]

57. You can't make this shit up!

[wildeyed]

98. More #berniemath

[George II]

105. A number of years ago I flew up to Toronto to visit my family. It was before passports were 100%...

...required to cross the border in either direction. The customs woman in Toronto sneared at me and among other things said, "you Americans have to understand that we're not the 51st state"!

Maybe the Provinces of Canada are now participating in the United States primaries?

[Sancho]

56. Are those the states where internet polls showed Bernie ahead?

[riversedge]

63. are you referring to

some US territories as states? just curious.

[grossproffit]

73. Did we add 4 more states overnight?

[George II]

81. Where did all those new states come from?

Up to yesterday 15 states had voted. You say 54 haven't voted. The US now has 69 states?

[wildeyed]

99. Surprise!

[zappaman]

89. Lol!

[wildeyed]

102. Did we add more, or does he get a do-over

on some that he already lost?

[shenmue]

107. How many?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Which is why we should have open national primaries and general elections.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I so agree with that.

The primaries should all be held on the same day, with absentee and early votes accepted if people aren't able to vote at their polling station, just like a general election. Caucuses should be a thing of the past.

[Agschmid]

20. Yup.

Though I'm not sure about the one day part.

[hill2016]

23. most likely

the one with the most name recognition wins with the rest of the field splitting the votes. You don't have time to build up momentum and interest.

[Agschmid]

24. Yah which is why I think I'd prefer a regional primary system.

[Gwhittey]

39. Yea

And also if you cut back on debates that is good way to help the one with the most name recognition win. 2008 was 26 and now 2016 we have 6. Less DNC sanctioned ones and 0 unsanctioned ones. Wonder why the DNC changed the rules about goint to unsanctioned means you would not be invited to sanctioned ones. Odd they did this after Sanders declared and not 8 years ago if there was a problem with last Primary.

[SFnomad]

103. and now 2016 we have 6 ...

Tonight's debate was the 7th Democratic debate and there are 3 more debates scheduled. Not sure where you come up with only 6.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Well, okay, maybe a week,

but it definitely shouldn't be dragging on for four or five months. All a long primary season does is keep us at each other's throats for months on end.

[Karma13612]

62. ^100^ eom

[dlwickham]

31. That's ridiculous

I don't want anyone choosing the Democratic candidate but Democrats

I can't imagine any Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. wanting non-party members choosing their candidates either.

[nolabels]

101. Okay then, i will send Goldman Sachs a letter stating your concerns

[Karma13612]

44. +1000000 . eom

[Starry Messenger]

14. I'm in CA, and I haven't heard one word about the election being cancelled.

I expect my ballot to come in the mail in a bit, and I will vote and mail it back. It's pretty easy.

[dlwickham]

32. Voting in California was so easy

One of the things I miss the most

That and Peets coffee and their chai

[Starry Messenger]

37. Especially with all of the props on there.

You can vote in your bathrobe, while sipping Peets in the comfort of home.

[dlwickham]

45. I used to do that LOL

now I want some Peets

[Retrograde]

97. And I just got a letter from the county registrar yesterday

asking me (a non-affiliated voter) which party ballot I want for the June election, so either the election's on or they discovered a new way to waste funds. Hmmm - no option to vote in the Republican primary this time.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. One nationwide primary.

Abolish the Electoral College.

Even without dealing with the noxious influence of corporate money, we can vastly reform our elections.

[Agschmid]

21. A nationwide primary really makes it hard for someone to "break into" the establishment.

While I support all states being switched to primary, I'm not sure I support it all on one day.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. It's a tough one, for sure.

But for me, eliminating bias in primary scheduling would be worth the downsides. I think the best way to help anti-establishment candidates would be to drop the corrupt superdelegate system. All delegates should be assigned by the vote of the people...like a democracy.

[Agschmid]

26. I mostly agree.

[Karma13612]

64. Where do I sign?

You begin by publicizing the date of the Primary. Mid July. No snow storms, kids out of school.

The GOTV effort in full swing by the campaigns, the debates one per month for 6 months starting in January of election year.

Campaigns strategize how to maximize ad buys, retail politics, speeches, rallies, etc.

The American public HAS to take more resonsibility in getting informed about the candidates.
As much as I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to shake Bernies hand, he doesn't come to NY and visit every town hall, so those in retail politic states might have to accept that hand shaking and one-on-one opportunities will be less prevalent.

Just a thought.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. Good plan!

And yes, becoming informed about the candidates is critical. True for all political decisions, really...with an ignorant electorate, democracy fails. We're seeing a vivid demonstration of that in today's America.

[Karma13612]

83. very very true! eom

[AtomicKitten]

27. This Californian says hell yeah. k/r

[Cali_Democrat]

30. The California primary has been cancelled?

Nobody told me.

[panader0]

34. I'm amazed this post wasn't locked as were the two by La Taz Hot.

Weird days here.

[onecaliberal]

41. That's why I did the OP. Fully expecting it would be.

Solidarity!

[NCTraveler]

35. No one is being stopped from voting. Nt

[Jitter65]

38. This like other misleading and sorry propaganda by BS supporters will backfire. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

46. the beltway conventional wisdom rectoids dont realize there is a country west of New Jersey

[marlakay]

47. Another very norcal

And I Want my vote to count!!

[DCBob]

48. What on earth are you talking about?

The CA primary will be in June as planned.

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. And may well be entirely meaningless by then. That's the point.

National primary...one day. Can't happen too soon (along with dumping the anti-democratic Electoral College)...

[DCBob]

71. Well those are other bigger picture issues that is separate from the OP's subject.

The original post stated "Why are democrats trying to STOP people from voting?".

I dont think any Democrat is trying to stop anyone.

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. I disagree.

If one's vote is rendered meaningless, it's the exact same thing, for all practical purposes, as not being able to vote. Those "bigger picture issues" are at the core of any effort to eliminate a status quo in which people's votes are rendered meaningless.

[DCBob]

74. Is that any Democrat's fault?

Those rules have been in place for decades.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Um...okay.

Nice tangent...but if you wanted the existing conversation to end, not replying would have worked,too.

Bye-bye.

[DCBob]

76. That was the subject matter of the OP.

I agree the system is flawed but good grief that's a huge complex issue that will take a massive effort to change.

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. And, as already stated, I disagree that the points I raised aren't directly applicable to that OP.

Voters being effectively disenfranchised is the main point of the OP. The matters I mentioned are the cause. What persons may have actually made these crappy decisions is a tangent.

[DCBob]

78. The cause you mention is not the same as the cause the OP mentioned.

You should correct the person who started the OP.

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. Um...okay.

Wow, you are all over the place! This is kinda fun, but obviously going nowhere. Bye, now.

[DCBob]

80. You appear to be the one all over the place.

My focus has always been on the subject matter of the OP. You insisted on discussing other larger tangential issues that really cant be resolved anyway.

[Bleacher Creature]

85. You have a lot more patience than I do!

Some people just don't understand that the process is governed by rules that have developed over many years. I don't disagree that many of them are ludicrous. Personally, I find the idea that IA and NH having significantly more influence than CA and NY to be absurd, but I also realize that it's far to late to change that for this cycle.

This is what you get when you have a candidate that has spent his entire career focusing on himself (speaking solely from a political angle), and has refused to be part of any effort to improve the Democratic Party as a whole.

[DCBob]

90. Sometimes.. not always.

I also agree the process is flawed but that just the way it is. I dont know what it would take to change that but its irrelevant to the current situation. They all knew the rules going in.

[seaglass]

70. It appears that people do not want to be banned for saying they won't vote for Hillary if she

is the nominee until after CA votes.

Dumbest fucking shit I have seen.

Unlike KOS I have seen no announcement by the Admins that they are going to disallow attacks on Hillary when/if Bernie is mathematically eliminated.

I think this is a preemptive strike on the Admins.

[Hydra]

49. Good job everyone!

I see Team Hill is backing away from this angle, though some have not gotten the memo yet.

I got to vote for Obama in 2008, and my state isn't up yet either. If you don't want a primary, then you don't actually want an elected president- you want a selected one.

[jillan]

55. It's unreal how undemocratic DemocraticUnderground.com has become.

[eggman67]

65. Pennsylvania would like a say as well

but we're in April so screw us.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. May 17 here in Oregon.

And the candidates only use us for optics, anyway. Our virtual certainty to go "blue" and our pitiful little contingent of electors means we're considered unimportant anyway...

[eggman67]

82. The primary system is in serious need of reform n/t

[Adrahil]

86. Oh, you can vote, it just won't matter by then.

Me neither. My state is a late voter too. It'll be over by the time I cast a ballot.

[tritsofme]

88. Incredibly silly thread. Talk to your own California Democratic leadership, they set the date.

Not Hillary or anyone else in the national party. California Democrats alone made the decision to make their voters essentially irrelevant to the process.

[onecaliberal]

91. My state party isn't saying Hillary won after 12 states have voted.There are 50 states.

This state has MORE people than any state in the Nation. The candidate is chosen AFTER everyone votes, not after a dozen SMALL states vote at least half of which will NEVER vote democratic in the general have voted.
You people keep turning off those you think will suddenly bow to the queen.

[tritsofme]

93. Again, you are making my case. The state Dem Party chose to make their voters irrelevant.

Under almost no circumstance would a June primary be relevant, I agree it is ridiculous.

They should choose to vote in March. This contest will be long over by the time California votes this year, and it is no one's fault but your own officials. They knew the rules, you shouldn't be shocked that one of the final primaries is not relevant to the outcome.

[MineralMan]

92. How can anyone on DU stop you from voting in the California

primary election? Go and vote! Vote for the candidate you prefer. For pete's sake! You know the date of the election. Go to your polling place and mark your ballot.

Will it matter in the primary race? I have no idea. But go and Vote! Every election, right down to the school board election.

[itsrobert]

95. I'm voting for Hillary in California

thanks

Hillary is going to get a huge win in the Golden State.

[Retrograde]

96. We tried that in 2008

The California primary was very early that year (February?): the state went to Clinton, who went on to not win the Democratic nomination.

IMHO, the bigger problem is with all the states that try to jump in to be the first, which ends up dragging the election cycle out for almost 2 years. That and the emphasis on just the presidential races as if Congress didn't exist.

And as I like to keep reminding people, there are a number of other offices on the primary ballot, including US senator.

[Cleita]

100. We need to do the presidential primaries on one day or maybe within one week in the same month

over the whole nation. This scatter shot stuff is ridiculous. If municipalities and states want to do it differently for their own offices, that's okay, but the federal elections need to be standardized.

[wildeyed]

104. You do not understand the meaning of the word

disenfranchise.

verb
deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
"the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification"

No one has deprived you of anything. You are just angry that your candidate is losing. But there ARE people out there ACTUALLY being disenfranchised, mostly poor and/or young POC. And appropriating this term for a temper tantrum is not helping them at all. And threatening not to vote is unimpressive too. Sometimes your favored candidate loses an election. It happens. You feel bad and then you put on your big boy or girl undies and get on with it. So save your histrionics.