Sid

That has nothing to do with the Washington caucus system.

But if that's the justification - whatever.

They were empowered to do so because Sanders winning the caucus allowed him and his delegates more control at the state party level even though HRC won the Washington primary with a much higher turnout.

And they didn't cast their votes for Bernie.

So who knows what point they were making?

Except - now we have Precedent Trump.

He had made it clear long before the election that he would not be voting for Clinton. The only way he actually became a elector is because of the caucus that didn't accurately reflect the will of the Democratic voters in the state. I'll give you the, 3 Colin Powell ones, but the Faith Spotted Eagle guy is a problem that would not have occurred if HRC's support in the state as shown in the higher turnout primary was accurately reflected in the delegates elected to attend the state convention.

voter has changed his reasons for not voting HRC. I believe he just wanted attention.

There were a number of Bernie supporters who voted in our Democratic primaries and caucuses across the country who had a point to make - and now, "it is what it is."

But as a Democrat, representing Democrats, I do not understand what point could be made voting for nothing?

This is like an exit poll - and just enough "Democrats" turned to statistically give the election to the Republican.

That is my point.