Not even Solomon could figure out a solution to this FL - MI dilemma.

[kentuck]

I do not think it will be possible to ignore the voters of these states. We should start with that premise, in my opinion. Also, all the candidates agreed, because they broke the rules, that the delegates of those two states should not be counted. So what should be done?

In my opinion, nothing should be done until after the OH, TX, and PA primaries. Hillary Clinton must win those states. If she does not win those states, then FL and MI become much less important in the grand scheme of delegate votes. However, if she does win OH, TX, and PA, then some solution must be found to count the delegates of FL and MI.

One possible solution would be to seat them at the Convention but not to count their delegates on the first ballot. Since all the candidates had agreed not to count the delgates of those two states. Under that premise, all the delegates from MI and FL could be declared "independent" delegates and not committed to either candidate. They would be free to vote for whomever they would wish, if the vote went to a second ballot.

Some have suggested a new primary or a new caucus in each of these states, but that may not be possible. For example, the FL legislature is controlled by the Republicans and MI doesn't really have the resurces to hold another primary or caucus. Anyway, Clinton supporters feel that Obama would be favored if they were to have a caucus. Any other suggestions?

[yourout]

1. Either they re-vote or nothing.

[kentuck]

3. That is putting yourself in a box...

in my opinion, that you cannot escape.

[HockeyMom]

26. Absolutely

When I voted, I was the only person on the Democratic machines. There were lines for the Republican machines.

Now you tell me. How many Democrats didn't bother to vote at all knowing their votes would not count? I almost didn't vote myself.

Either don't count them at all or hold a re-vote.

[madfloridian]

2. If Hillary gets the nomination because of FL delegates...

she will not be considered legit by many of us.

[kentuck]

5. Well, none of the candidates campaigned in FL...

But all of them were on the ballot. Edwards and Obama were on the ballot, as well as Clinton. The voters looked at all three of their names and chose Hillary over-whelmingly. I do not think we should ignore that fact.

[WillyT]

18. True... But A Whole Lot Of Democrats...

probably went fishing that day because they were told that their votes wouldn't count.

Plus, what do you do about folks that have changed their minds since then?

:shrug:

[kentuck]

21. Are you saying..?

That Hillary supporters don't fish?

[WillyT]

38. Apparently... They Hunt !!!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[madfloridian]

22. Of course we should ignore that fact. She was ok with the rules...

until she needed the delegates. There is no good thing that will come of her demands for those delegates.

We all knew Hillary would win here. This is and was her state to lose.

Nelson and others thought that moving up the primary before Super Tuesday would make the Florida winner inevitable and give an aura of invincibility the week before.

[kentuck]

27. But it's not just about Hillary..

What about the Democratic voters?

[earthlover]

23. You are ignoring the fact that FL and MI knew the consequences of their decision

And they went ahead anyhow. This is the fault of MI and FL for being so idiotic in the first place.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the candidates including Hillary agreed with this.

You can't change the rules during the game. Not the way things work out well.

If Hillary succeeds in changing the rules, and this puts her with the nomination, it will be a hollow victory. Because it would guarantee her loss in November. Not that she could have won anyway. This would turn a loss into a landslide for McCain.

[kentuck]

28. But Florida's decision was made by their Republican legislature...

Not by the Democrats.

[madfloridian]

32. Kentuck, I have respected you a lot. But that is just not true.

From instigator to victim. It was a Dem who introduced the early primary bill in Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1829

How it began last August....how Florida Democrats began their propaganda war
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1819

Think I exaggerate about Florida's attitude? Here's a county chairperson's rant against Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1827

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a "voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1453

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1452

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1455

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1456

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1458

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1459

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1460

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1461

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1462

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1465

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1466

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1467

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1468

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1469

Bill Nelson today will file a bill for regional primaries...but first he had to get your attention
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1478

Bill Nelson today: "DNC penalties unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1479

Carl Levin and Terry McAuliffe made a deal about primaries in 2004.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1483

Email from Florida DEC chairs saying not to give to the DNC or candidates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1481

Pelosi says it is not Florida's fault at all. So if the speaker says it I must be wrong.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1567

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1564

Details on how Florida worked with the GOP to set the early primary date.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1617

Nobody sued Terry McAuliffe when he said Michigan's delegates would not get near Boston.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1638

Nelson and Levin of Michigan file the bill today. It's getting deeper
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1741

My postings about the heartbreak of the Florida primary fiasco.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1607

Florida Dems at convention have button that says "Screw Dean"...very classy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1608

Senate leader ponders suing 'rogue states' over primary
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1527

[kentuck]

33. Yes, the vast majority of Democrats agreed with the Repubs...

But wasn't it the Repub legisalture and the Republican Governor that had to initiate the change??

[madfloridian]

40. No, I just posted a pesky fact for you.....it was introduced by a Democrat.

And they pushed it all the way.

[kentuck]

43. Thanks for the clarification...

Does that change the fact that the Democratic delegates should be counted? They broke the rules and now they will have to be totally disenfranchised. Seems rather harsh?

[madfloridian]

45. They lied about the party and its chairman. All the way. They openly defied..

the DNC and its rules. They took Dean to court and lost. Nelson v Dean. Another suit lost as well.

If the delegate are counted for Hillary, she will not be considered legit.

[kentuck]

47. Open defiance of the "rules"?

Can anything be worse in a democracy?

[madfloridian]

52. Yes, choosing a nominee with one state having the power...

because they broke the rules.

Trust me, you can argue this all you want. It will leave a very bad taste.

[kentuck]

54. You mean like IA and NH??

Isn't Florida just as important as those two states?

[madfloridian]

59. You are just getting silly now and ignoring pesky facts.

That is making me think you are baiting us on a very serious issue.

[WillyT]

62. LOL !!! - Yes !!!

Bad Kentuck!!!

:spank:

Hey mad!!!

:hi:

[kentuck]

63. I would never try to "bait you", madfloridian...

I think this is a very important issue. I was hoping to get people to think of all the complications involved in this serious problem for our Party. However, after PA, OH, and TX, it may not seem as relevant. Obama may be unreachable by then? However, I think it is productive to discuss this matter. I think it is problematic anytime any voters are disenfranchised, whether or not they broke the Party "rules" and we need to find a solution if this race becomes much tighter. I respect your opinions and was not trying to be "silly".

[Emit]

34. Ring (D-FL): “I hear that a lot, that I was duped by the Republicans. No one duped me.”

“If you turn on the left wing liberal radio down in Broward, I am public enemy number one,” said Ring, who actually campaigned in 2006 on the need for an early primary and makes no apologies for his leading the effort. “I hear that a lot, that I was duped by the Republicans. No one duped me.” http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/09/28/it-was-a-democrat-not-republicans-who-moved-floridas-primary-date/

[kentuck]

35. So, how does that change the equation?

The Democrats were for the early primary. Did they not have that right? Should they be disqualified now?

[madfloridian]

42. They broke the rules after repeated warnings by Dean and the DNC

And they went on the air and laughed at him and his trying to slow down the leapfrogging.

If the delegates count and Hillary is the nominee, she will not be legit.

[kentuck]

46. "If the delegates count and Hillary is the nominee, she will not be legit."

But if the delegates count and Hillary is not the nominee, that will be legit? Or they should not be counted under any circumstances?

[madfloridian]

71. There are technically NO delegates right now from Florida.

Unless Hillary sues as her campaign is indicating. So if there are none legally, then yes, they should not be counted at all.

[kentuck]

72. I would think most courts would rule in favor of the voters...

and against Party rules. Then it would be up to the Party to figure out how to count them.

[stevenleser]

75. No, they have already ruled that parties have an absolute right to determine who their nominee is

Sorry, this has already been litigated.

[kentuck]

76. Do you have a link or article about that?

I was not aware of a court decision on this matter?

[madfloridian]

80. No, that is not true. Here is the ruling from the Supreme Court.

There is a supreme court precedent from 1981 which sided with the DNC. Bill Nelson sued Dean and lost. An activist sued Dean and his case was dismissed. They were told to sue the state of Florida.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836

"The 1981 Supreme Court decision for the case Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered."

[kentuck]

82. Thanks....so there is a precedent.

I expect to see this later in the mainstream media. :-)

[cd3dem]

56. Actually Obama ran TV ads... said he couldn't pull them.. but they have now been pulled in my state

since our caucus is over.. I do not see his ads... he broke the rules and campaigned there... so another lie by Obama...

and he lost so now he doesn't want them to count...

He is not a uniter or inspirational person to Florida voters!!!!!

[tabatha]

60. He checked with t he Dem authorities

about what to do. They said it was OK because with a national ad, he could not exclude FL.

Hillary has not checked with Dem authorities, but is trying to tell them what to do.

[cd3dem]

69. he said he was unable to pull them... but he can do it in my state after the fact...

LIES!!!!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

74. "The Dem authorities"?

The chair of the SC democratic party - hardly the authority.

[Ravy]

8. Hillary only got a few delegates more than half, so

that isn't likely to be the case.

Ignoring FL and MI will taint a victory by Obama as well, if it is very close.

[kentuck]

16. I think she won by about 400,000 votes??

in Florida?

[Ravy]

29. Right, but I think she only got 108 out of 210 delegates.

105 of which would be a wash since the number required to win would go up by that.

[kentuck]

31. I thought she got more...

Maybe someone can find those numbers?

[AtomicKitten]

4. I'll bet Obama is hoping to win so big it won't matter.

[kentuck]

6. That is the plan.

They hope to surprise Hillary in OH, TX, or PA and make it less relevant.

[tekisui]

9. The gap has been closed in TX.

Some polls show Obama up, even.

[AtomicKitten]

14. a decisive win would take all the air out of the ugly ClintonCo has tee'd up

I do hope Obama sweeps to the nod and leaves all that bullshit behind in his wake.

[tekisui]

7. A new Primary cannot happen, it's an impossibilty. A new caucus would be costly.

Who would fund it? It would take much time, effort and money.

IF the convention required a second ballot, ALL delegates would be released to vote how they chose-- FL, MI, and every other state.

The only way that we would need a second ballot is if neither Obama nor Clinton got the majority, 2025 delegates. That could only happen if:

a) It is so close that the 26 delegates that Edwards holds are needed to sway it. OR

b) Some Super delegates sit out. I don't know if they can do that, someone please let me know. Can superdelegates opt out of the first vote at the convention?

[Ravy]

11. I am pretty sure they could sit it out if they wished.

And even pledged delegates have been known to change their minds.

[tekisui]

15. Pledged delegates can change after the first vote, not for the first vote.

[Ravy]

25. Sure they can. And have.

"DNC rules state that "delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," there is no actual requirement that they vote for the candidate they are pledged to."


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_convention_delegate_process_explained

[KittyWampus]

10. they could hold a caucus. That they won't, speaks volumes.

[CreekDog]

12. Obama wins by large enough margins that seating them makes little difference

Then state party delegates agree to be bound by party rules in the future as a condition of being seated this time around.

[WillyT]

13. Another Solution...

was posted yesterday br DUer grantcart...

That solution was to seat both FL and MI, but split their delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama.

Yes it makes it a tie (a wash), but they are seated nonetheless. No advantage or disadvantage for either candidate.

Plus... any do-over would probably happen late in the game, and (sorry MI and FL) I don't want the entire nominating process being decided by the two states that broke the rules. And I especially don't want this whole goddamned thing coming down to Florida in the end.

Again... split 'em and seat 'em, or forget 'em.

:shrug:

[kentuck]

19. That is a possibility...

However, it was the Republicans in Florida that chose to have the early primary - not the Democrats. Why should the Democratic voters be punished??

[WillyT]

36. Now You'd Have To Go To madfloridian For That Information...

if I remember correctly, the Democrats went along with this plan rather enthusiastically. I believe there were only about 3 or 4 votes against. Doesn't sound to me like the Democrats mounted any significant opposition to the plan. I think both sides saw a chance for their state's prominence in this primary season, and I'm sure the media people saw all sorts of dollar signs comin their way.

But like I said, verify the details with madfloridian.

:hi:

[kentuck]

39. It does appear that the Democrats in FL were very enthusiastic...

about the plan also. So, now, we have to weigh that into our decision?

[whistle]

17. Solomon would cut each state in half

[writes3000]

20. My Solution as an Obama supporter.

I think we have to find a way to acknowledge the primaries in FL & MI. NOt because Hillary says so. She and her camp have lost the right to claim a position in this fight.

But I do agree that Florida and Michigan voters should feel like their votes count. But - and this is a BIG but - it is fundamentally unfair to claim that the vote in both states is reflective of a fair contest. It's not. And most honest people know it's not fair.

In most primary states, in the weeks before Obama has been able to personally campaign there, Hillary had huge double digits leads. Once Obama arrives and is able to campaign in person, those leads shrink SIGNIFICANTLY. So to say that these races were just like every other race is just bullshit.

So here's my solution.

1) Take the vote Obama/Clinton percentages in each state - Florida/Michigan.

2) Average the Clinton/Obama percentages in the rest of the US primary races.

And average those amounts together.

Florida delegates = Florida primary vote percentages + the Clinton/Obama other primary averages divided by 2

Michigan delegates = Michigan primary vote percentages + the Clinton/Obama other primary averages divided by 2


Is this the absolutely fair to everyone? No. But it does factor in two things. It gives a strong emphasis on the actual votes in each state and it gives a strong emphasis to the fact that Obama brings voters in when he has a chance to campaign on their home turf.

I suspect the DNC will ultimately decide on something like this. And yes, as an Obama supporter, I recognize that this plan still favors Hillary Clinton in both states.

[kentuck]

24. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan...

He didn't get any votes.

[writes3000]

30. Ha! Good point.

Hmmmm, let me think about that. Damn, I thought I had the perfect solution. Ha-ha.

[ecstatic]

37. NO BIBLICAL REFERENCES ON DU!1!1 SERIES! STOP preeeaching! nt

[grantcart]

41. actually solomon had the answer give each party half of the delegations

The voters of the state are reperesented and involved in everything at the convention. They will simply not have an impact on the nomination. Its simple and fair.

[stevenleser]

44. Sure he could. Around 90% would be satisfied with new caucuses

That is about as good as you can get with any decision on anything.

[Bread and Circus]

48. Do you live in Michigan or Florida?

[kentuck]

49. No, I do not...

But if I did, and I had voted, I would have wanted my vote to count. If you are a native of one of those states, what do you think should be done? We are only looking for a sensible solution.

[Bread and Circus]

67. I am native to Michigan and currently reside in Michigan. I pay thousands of dollars of taxes here..

I did NOT get a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice. The best I could do was "UNCOMMITTED". A write in of Obama would have been useless as the paper ballot cards in my ward are electronically tabulated. If you seat the delegates in favor of Clinton without me being able to vote for my candidate is taxation without representation and literally strikes of the kinds of "elections" we see in dictatorships and other fake democracies.

In my state, there was no campaigning, no commercials, no candidate speeches....effectively nothing comprising free speech by any of the candidates.

This is something ALL the major candidates agreed to and SIGNED THEIR NAMES to.

And why did they do this, you may ask?

TO CURRY FAVOR with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

One would be wise to note that Hillary et. al. made this "disenfranchisement" (the same disenfranchisement she signed her name to) an issue ONLY AFTER Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada was out of the way and ONLY WHEN she knew for certain South Carolina was out of her grasp.

She used the disenfranchisement when it suited her, then has tried to campaign against it. Classic Clintonian, or even Rovian if you will, tactics.

She agreed to the rules and now wants to change them to suit her political ends, and hides being "voter enfranchisement" as a foil.

Seating Michigan's delegates will only enfranchise her early supporters, and her early supporters only.

It was all a ruse, and that's why she is the only one out of the major candidates to have her name on the ballot in Michigan. She had always planned this as a safety parachute.

In all fairness, Michigan should not count as influence on the election. As soon as you validate MI and Florida as breaking the rules, then there are no rules and any primary schedule from here on out will be "whatever goes".

However, in order to allow Michigan and Florida to have any influence then they should have real campaigns in both states resulting in either caucuses or primaries in both states.

To do anything else is to hand Hillary delegates on the basis of name recognition in Florida and name recognition and being the only major candidate name on the ballot.

Count me out as ever giving another dime or vote to the Democratic party ever again if Hillary lies and cheats her way to the nomination.

[kentuck]

68. I think the MI election is different from Florida's...

In no way should any delegates from MI be counted for one candidate or another.

[Bread and Circus]

73. How in hell can you consider Florida's election real either? Let me ask you a few simple questions:

What kind of a Democracy prohibits candidates from actually campaigning?

What would you think of a country that was going to decide its President but prohibited any candidate from actually speaking directly to the voters?

Let's say the Governorship of your state was up for grabs and the election was just around the corner but none of the candidates could campaign or speak directly to you. How would you feel about the results of such an election? Would such results seem legitimate to you?

Having an Election without campaigning is like having...

...a trial without being able to plea your case or present any evidence.
...a signing contest without anyone being able to sing.
...a writing contest without anyone being able to write.

If you can't perform that which is totally essential to the process of Democracy, and that is being able to communicate to the voters, then the election is not legitimate.

So how, pray tell, are we going to let our entire nomination process rest on the inherently illigitimate election of one state?

[kentuck]

77. Did I say Florida's election was "real" or legitimate?

I started the thread because I think both states are problematic. However, when only one candidate is on the ballot, that is worse than when all the candidates are on the ballot but they don't get to campaign. However, it is only worse by degrees. Several hundred thousand voters voted for Obama in Florida. So he was not totally unknown. But it is also true that he has done much better where he has been permitted to campaign. So, the whole issue is not to let one state decide who the nominee will be.

[Bread and Circus]

79. I meant it more rhetorically than directed at you.

[stevenleser]

50. Well, do you think that people cannot empathize or sympathize with

what is going on for the voters of those states? It isnt that difficult to imagine how one would feel in either circumstance. I lived in FL for 12 years, through the 2000 debacle. I am sure that voters elsewhere can imagine what it felt like to be disenfranchised and have the election decided by the SCOTUS.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Simple: they broke the rules, so they get no vote on the candidate

Whether they have a say in the policies endorsed and other issues is a different issue. I think that the obvious and fair solution would be that they should have a normal vote on everything except for the nomination; their disobedience on choosing a nominee has nothing to do with their right to a voice in policy, unless an extremist view is taken. In the latter case, how long and to what degree should they be punished for their disruption? THAT's an interesting question.

[kentuck]

53. That sounds like such a stern government-type warning...

DO NOT DISOBEY THE RULES. It doesn't matter that states can determine when they want to vote? Why should IA and NH vote first all the time? It sounds "undemocratic" with a small "d"..

[PurityOfEssence]

89. They had plenty of time to attempt to get the rules changed

I'm a liberal; I like government. Civilization is predicated on rules. The fact that people didn't have the gumption to make a stink about this four years ago and work to get some kind of revolving progression of primaries going is not the fault of the rest of us who went along with the rules.

Personally, I'm glad that some of the big states moved up to Super Tuesday, but I'd prefer to have a longer and drawn-out season to see who's really got the mettle for the job. Many people have proposed some kind of revolving regional sequence, and that'll probably come to pass, but pissing all over everyone else to get one's way is infantile and selfish.

Floridians and Michiganders who supported this insurrection think that they're "fighting the man" and standing up for their rights, when they're actually fucking ALL THE REST OF US, and especially the weaker and less-funded candidates who don't have the tactical flexibility to deal with such a changing situation. Once one is a part of the organization, one has, out of a sense of communal decency, the obligation to either struggle within the rules to change them, knuckle under or quit. Anything else is carping disdain for others.

There was plenty of time to agitate for a more fair situation, and being that the organization is pretty pluralistic, the favored, early states would be bound to have their privilege knocked down at least a Dixon's Notch or two.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. Simple: no vote for the nominee, votes on party policy, planks, etc.

They specifically, selfishly broke the rules, which hurt everyone, especially the second-tier candidates with few resources and a careful gameplan.

Whether they have a say in the policies endorsed and other issues is a different issue. I think that the obvious and fair solution would be that they should have a normal vote on everything except for the nomination; their disobedience on choosing a nominee has nothing to do with their right to a voice in policy, unless an extremist view is taken. In the latter case, how long and to what degree should they be punished for their disruption? THAT's an interesting question.

[kentuck]

57. Interesting.

So, you are saying they shold be seated. And they should be able to vote of everything except the nominee. Because there has to be some penalty for creating the chaos and disobeying the rules? Good argument.

[PurityOfEssence]

85. Not just a penalty, a HUGE penalty

This is civilization, not some agglomeration of libertarians doing what they damned well please. Their acts threw a monkey wrench into things, but they're still part of the family.

[billyoc]

58. We ignore most voters in most states every primary season,

What are MI/FL, something special?

[Umbram]

61. No, but Solomon would consider ALL of the relevent policies:

some of which I outlined here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4629570

rather than simply determining who was most benefited by any given solution and working backwards from there.

[matt819]

64. You answer your own question

You write that all the candidates agreed, the states broke the rules, and the delegates would not be counted. Then you ask what should be done. You've already answered your own question.

You can argue that we need to change the way we nominate candidates, and then there's the issue of how we vote for and elect candidates in the national election. These are big issues, and many academics have earned their doctorates studying electoral systems, voting concepts, etc.

And, look, the primary rules may be arcane, pointless, idiotic - name your adjective. But they were the rules everyone understood at the outset. (Please, let's not get into semantics about the waivers for IA and NH, etc. There's no question these states played by the rules.) Clinton and Obama knew this at the outset. The states' democratic parties violated those rules, as did one candiate. Another abided by those rules.

And now you're suggesting, what, that even though all was clear at the outset, the delegates in those states should be seated and awarded to Clinton? We've had close to eight years of a president changing rules in the middle of the game and choosing which rules/laws he would enforce and which he had every intention to violate. Do we really need to cast our lot with a candidate who is going to manipulate the system in this way? Does it bode well for a Clinton presidency?

[kentuck]

65. The 1,400,000 voters in FL did not break the "rules"...

It was the Party big shots and the legislature. Why should the voters be punished?

[matt819]

88. Who said life was fair?

Hey, I don't really disagree. It may not be fair. But the candidates knew what the rules were, and the voters knew their votes wouldn't count. They may have wanted them to count, and maybe in an ideal world they would have counted. And in later elections perhaps we'll have a different system. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, everyone knew going in that these primaries would effectively not count. And at least one candidate chose not to dedicate resources to those primaries, and I think Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states. So you can't go back now and say, hey, Clinton should get those delegates.

[stahbrett]

66. FL and MI should not be a deciding factor in determining the nominee, but

They should have delegates, but not if they would be able to sway the nomination one way or the other. So if Obama or Clinton somehow have such a clear lead in delegates that MI and FL would not be able to change things to help the other candidate, then fine - seat their delegates.

If need be, take a page from the other party and penalize them by 50% - just give them fewer delegates, making them less likely to be able to affect the nomination.

[Recursion]

70. I'm an Obama supporter, but seat them (counting the "uncommitted"s)

If it's close enough that those matter, then the superdelegates are going to be deciding it anyways, and their whole purpose (some people hate the idea of superdelegates; I don't) is to nudge the party one way or another when the vote is close.

There's no pretty solution either way.

On the one hand, speaking as an Obama supporter, if they get seated and it puts Clinton over the edge, obviously I'm going to feel that was foul play.

On the other hand, if they don't get seated, and that puts Obama over the edge, I have trouble defending the (yet again) disenfranchisement of Florida voters.

The real solutions are:

1) Parties set primary dates. Period. No state interference.
2) States set primary dates. Period. Parties have to deal with it.

This half-party, half-state shit is a recipe for disaster, as we're seeing right now.

On edit: obviously either way we should "seat" the delegates, the question is whether their first-round ballots should count.

[David Zephyr]

78. You, my good man, must make up your mind before the Kentucky contest.

You sat it out longer than I did, Kentuck. I was a basket case throughout 2007. I never really gave Obama the benefit of the doubt from the beginning that he could muster up a 50 state campaign organization and/or raise the money or be taken seriously because he was such a newcomer. Well, he proved me wrong on every count.

I think your third paragraph is worth thinking about.

I also really think that Michigan, more than Florida, has to revote either by primary or caucus as the ballot was unfair.

Perhaps, following the GOP's already established take on Florida, we could give 25% to 50% of the vote total. The difference is that the GOP granted 50% to the candidates but allowed them to campaign. We didn't even want our candidates campaigning there. Perhaps 25%.

[TexasObserver]

81. Solomon would order that the responsible Democrats in both states be cut in half, which I like.

Then he'd tell both states to get it right, and they would.

[hayu_lol]

83. For Michigan...

those candidates who received votes because they were on the ballot should receive the delegates they earned.

For the non-committed votes, award the delegates to 'uncommitted.'

It was those who pulled their names who caused this problem. Inexperience and stupidity reigns supreme.

Hillary earned her delegates. The others did not.

[TexasObserver]

87. Nonsense. Hillary cheated. Others didn't. She can't benefit from cheating.

Only a hill shill could think otherwise, and they don't count.

[jab105]

84. This is why I feel that FL ballots should be redone...my personal story...

my husband and I are registered independents...we were going to switch over to the democratic party so that we could vote in the democratic primary...however, when we found out that the vote didn't count, we didn't make it a priority to switch...it is a 30 day thing...so, we never switched...so, we couldn't vote for the democratic candidates...

Now, if Florida had counted, obviously, we would have switched...but we were told by all that it just didn't matter...

As for Michigan, its obvious that would need to be done over...

Though, IMO, I don't think that it will come to that...I think this race will be over on March 4...

[madfloridian]

86. Bill Nelson says "absolutely not" to do-over.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1817

He's the boss man.