I just gave this some thought, and outside of tradition, there is absolutely no reason to have a primary in some "commonwealth" or territory whose citizens (while technically American) cannot vote in the general election. This goes for Guam and the Virgin Islands. At least, Democrats abroad, who get delegates can vote as residents of the state they may technically still live in.

I guess, there has never been such a close race, but for Puerto Rico to have so many delegates (more than many states and D.C.) is absurd. I read that P.R. actually has two completely independent political parties that are really what residents identify with. Obviously, the former first lady would have an advantage in a US possession far away from normal politics. But, more importantly, iot doesn't matter at all.

I agree. Why have citizens vote for a candidate they can't vote for in the general election?

By the same token, why give certain states more delegates just to bribe them to hold their primaries later rather than earlier?

Even better, why do we count votes in states that never and I mean never vote democratic?

I do have a question though. If the primaries in Michigan and Florida weren't valid, how can the votes for US Representative or Senator be valid, or for that matter for ay state office?

Maybe we should disallow all the decision made in those states for all democratic positions. After all Obama backers didn't have any reason to vote then.

"territory whose citizens (while technically American) cannot vote in the general election."

I think you have no understanding of what you are saying here. Your use of the word 'citizen' unless meant in the arcane way it was used after the revolution is misguided. We don't really think of people from New Jersey as 'citizens' of New Jersey but rather as residents of New Jersey. In the modern common parlance one is a citizen of a country and a resident of a state. While it is arguable that there may be an ethnic or cultural Puertorrican nationality no such thing exists legally. Persons born in Puerto Rico simply are US citizens, just like those born in Utah.

There is zero difference in the citizenship status of persons born in Puerto Rico v. that of persons born in say Pennsylvania. Puertorricans can vote in the general US election if they reside in a state, dc, or abroad, but a Pennsylvanian cannot vote in the same election if he resides in Puerto Rico. Thus it is not an issue of someone being "technically" a US citizen. What matters here is where they reside. The incredibly insane part of all of this is that Puerto Rico is a part of the US but its residents cannot vote in the general US election, however, were these same residents to move to France or China then they could vote in the general election.

So the question we should be asking is not why have US citizens that cannot vote in the general election vote in the primary, but rather how can we justify that US citizens living in the US, who are subject to US federal law, have no say as to who runs the federal government. It is not the parties' mistake to have a more inclusive and democratically accurate system than that of the general election, rather it is the government's mistake to not include the votes of US citizens in the general election.

Take a look at these numbers compiled by a poster over at TalkLeft who has a functioning calculator (and a brain):

Of the states that voted in March, April, May, and June:

Hillary won 8 states with 1,125,125 total votes(659,512 more than Obama):

1. Ohio (by 228,781 votes) ;

2. Rhode Island (by 33,635 votes);

3. Texas (by 95,731 votes, reduced by 5,298 caucus votes won by Obama);

4. Pennsylvania (by 214,224 votes);

5. West Virginia (by 147,551 votes);

6. Indiana (by 14,195 votes);

7. Kentucky (by 249,346 votes); and

8. Puerto Rico (by 141,662 votes).

Obama won 6 states with 465,613 total votes:

1. North Carolina (by 222,859 votes);

2. Oregon (by 108,458 votes);

3. Mississippi (by 100,123 votes);

4. Wyoming; (by 2,066 caucus votes);

5. Guam (by 7 caucus votes) and

6. Vermont (by 32,100 votes).

Any questions, class? Especially about the will of the voters (as opposed to who can best game the system early in the game). These numbers are a graphic illustration of just where Obama's chances are headed - down, down, and yet further down.