A common complaint I have heard (mostly in US primary elections but in other places as well) is that because some states conduct their elections sooner than others, the outcome can be a foregone conclusion before all the elections have been conducted, and thus the results of those later elections are not going to matter. So far, I understand.
But the complaint goes farther and alleges that all the votes in those later elections don't count, because a winner has already been decided before their vote was counted, and thus that those votes didn't count.
This feels off. If it were true, it would imply that the only way not to disenfranchise anyone would be for the election to be decided by one vote (the very last vote), and that changing who was disenfranchised would be as simple as shuffling the ballots - not remarking them, not changing the total at all, just the order in which they're scored.
How do I explain that being mathematically eliminated like this does not necessarily mean being disenfranchised?