It absolutely is disenfranchising Caucus voters -actually all voters as well since most of us respect the individual states right to select their own candidate selection process. Those people participating in undercover disenfranchisement are just hoping enough of the caucus voters will ignore them and they will get away with this vile behavior. The popular vote was not originally intended to be irrelevant. The voice of the people should be heard, counted and respected - the delegates should follow the voice of the people. In NY their are politicians who back candidates who lost in their districts - the result - those politicians have lost the support of their local constituents - sounds fair to me. The bridge to the election is made of wood and Ms. Clinton is scorching the road behind her as she marches on to a less that graceful exit destroying lots of political careers in addition to her own. If she plans to run in the future she is going to need caucus voters - not sure if she thought about that possibility.

Most voters who encountered problems at polling sites or participated in mismanaged caucus' have moved on to planning and participation for the general election. No one thinks about the errors in the processes or the modifications that can make the processes better until the next election. Hopefully all of this 'behavior' can be rectified and the best candidate can get on with the job of saving our situation. I started this campaign cycle as a Clinton Supporter because as a NY native, I thought it would be beneficial to the country to have a NY Senator in office. NY is an excellent training ground - most states with rural and urban issues such as NY teach politicians alot. Her gender didn't make a difference - it was a nice to have not a need to have qualification. I thought she would shy away from behavior and tactics that were not divisive, immobilizing and disenfranchising. As I have watched the machine in motion, I have realized that solely depending on name recognition will destroy this nation. I have not met anyone who is proud of the Clinton's deliverables politically or otherwise. Internationally, yes her husband is a past President. All the glory of that is negated by his being caught cheating on her with an intern. She on the other had has been seen as smart, impersonal, and calculating. Not really sure I want that kind of representative as Commander in Chief.