2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Tonight I witnessed a shameful display of voter supression in Minnesota. [View all]BainsBane
(53,012 posts)way more than previous turnouts. The votes were 3 to 1 in favor of Sanders. I fail to see how that comprises voter suppression. Instead, I took it as a sign that Bernie's revolution is alive and well in Minneapolis.
You are angry that the party didn't divine in advance that turnout in MN would differ from the rest of the nation in that it exceeded 2008 levels.
As for not verifying names, it's a party caucus, not an election run by the Secretary of State. Your complaint about lack of verification also contradicts completely your claim to be concerned about voter suppression. You are suggesting that they allowed too many people to vote, while you seem to think should not have been. You might object to having lots of people vote, but I don't know why since your candidate was the overwhelming favorite.
That high turnout will also increase precinct and district delegate allocation in the upcoming election, which I would think should make you happy.
My candidate was blown out in my district, but I am still glad lots of people participated in the democratic process. I happen to care that the voice of the people is heard, even if those voices don't agree with my own. I worked my ass off for Clinton in MN, and I couldn't help be disappointed that she didn't do better here, but I will NEVER argue against increased participation in order to advance any candidate. Democracy matters far more.