Using Hillary Clinton's Logic, the Results from Puerto Rico's Primary Should Not Be Counted

First, let's analyze Hillary's reasons for including the results from the Florida and Michigan primaries. Here is her argument:
1. Florida and Michigan will vote in the general presidential election.
2. Florida and Michigan voted in the primaries.
Therefore the results from these states' primaries should be counted, notwithstanding the fact that these states broke the rules about when their primaries could be held, and that not all the candidates were on the ballot in Michigan.

Now, let's apply the same reasoning to the yesterday's primary election in Puerto Rico.
1. Puerto Rico will not vote in the general presidential election, since only the 50 states and the District of Columbia get to select presidential electors.
2. Puerto Ricans DID vote in yesterday's primary election.
Therefore the results from Puerto Rico's primary should NOT be counted, since Puerto Rico has no say in the outcome of the general election.

There is no logic in the way the two major parties pick their presidential candidates. It is a democratic mishmash, rather than an orderly process. There are states with closed primaries, those with open primaries, those with caucuses, and those with both primaries and caucuses. States that vote early and those that vote later, with the former usually having a disproportionate say in who the eventual nominee is. In addition, there are different methods used in selecting pledged delegates, not to mention the super-delegates, who gain their status according to party rules and aren't selected (as delegates) by anybody.

When arguing that the Florida and Michigan votes should be counted, Hillary brought up the issue of "disenfranchisement" This was disingenuous, to say the least. "Enfranchisement" should mean that the primary or caucus voters in each state have an equal say in the selection of their party's nominee, or if not an equal say, at least one in proportion to the number of their state's electoral votes. This is clearly not the case. You can't be disenfranchised if you've never been properly enfranchised.

Hillary Clinton wants to stick to the rules of the delegate-selection process when it suits her, and to deviate from these rules when it does not. Now that the DNC's rules committee has come up with a Florida compromise and a Michigan compromise, she is apparently unhappy with the latter, even though almost all of the Michigan Democratic "bigwigs" supported it. Shouldn't their opinion trump hers? We're talking about Michigan voters, after all.

I wish the media would focus more on these inconsistencies, but be assured that there is a method to her logical "madness". She wants to get the nomination any which way she can.