I guess that's a fair assessment. I agree that it's important that the fewest voters are disenfranchised.
I disagree entirely with this statement. Let's consider two hypothetical scenarios for the the general election in a state.
(1) As each voter enters the polling station, they must roll a 6 sided die. Only the people who roll a 5 get to vote.
(2) All registered Republicans are forbidden to vote.
Obviously both of these are horrible ways to hold an election. But if I was only allowed to choose between these two options, I'd prefer (1) to (2) by a longshot, even though (2) causes "the fewest voters to be disenfranchised". Why is this? Because the disenfranchisement in (1) is uniform, while that in (2) is biased towards one candidate's supporters.
This is exactly why the original election failed to be legitimate, and why seating the delegates without a revote is such a horrid idea. The voters who would be disenfranchised (those who stayed home because they were told that the election wouldn't count and possibly as well because their candidate wasn't on the ballot) would be heavily tilted towards those who favored Obama.
Clinton's favored plan (barring voters from the polls based on how they voted in the "primary" earlier) has the identical problem. Not only does it disenfranchise a large class of voters, but the ones it does are tilted so far towards one candidate over the other that it effectively would delegitimize the results. The scale of disenfranchisement is smaller, but the effect is the same.
Poll
