they are certain their candidate will either win or lose without their vote anyway, based on polling?  It is a documented fact that in every election in U.S. history, there are people who refrain from voting because they think they know how the result is going to unfold, and don't feel their vote is necessary. Should we invalidate any/all elections in U.S. history, because in each election, there have been voters who made the wrong decision by staying home?

What is your position on people who don't vote because because it is raining outside?  Should we invalidate all elections in which it can be proven that someone stayed home because they didn't want to get wet?

What is your position on people who don't vote because Republicans send them mailers saying a Tuesday vote is actually ocurring on Wednesday?  Should we invalidate the entire election if it can be proven that at least one voter did not vote based on bad advice?  

In accordance with the foregoing, it is clear that we should not invalidate primaries in which millions of people voted for their candidate, because of the ones who voted for Mitt because Markos Moulitsas told them to, or who stayed home because they were told their votes would not count?

The fact that you people want to throw out two entire primaries based on the people who did not vote is comparable to all of the above.  Yet, I don't hear you complain that all elections that have ever occurred in the United States of America should be set aside, because there is proof that someone did not vote, and now regrets THEIR MISTAKE.