Offering a MI & FL solution:

[rateyes]

Seat them like this. Michigan: Clinton 55% & Obama 45% of total elected delegates. Florida: Clinton 50% Obama 50% of total elected delegates.

That way Clinton gets the totals she racked up in both states, and Obama gets what is left.

Clinton is not harmed, because she gets the delegates based on the vote.

Obama is not harmed, because he gets a few more than the vote totals in each state, but it's fair because he was harmed by obeying the rules not to participate in MI (rules that Clinton did not follow)----and, he did not have the opportunity to campaign in Florida, which probably would have made the vote closer anyway.

As far as punishment to the Democratic Parties of both states for breaking the rules...take away their super delegates (since the super delegates are the party leaders who came up with the idea to break the rules in the first place), and in 2012 the states agree that they will not hold primaries before Super Tuesday.

[Arkansas Granny]

1. How about just playing by the rules that were laid out by the DNC before the primaries began

instead of changing rules that were broken which campaign would gain an advantage. If you allow any delegates from those states to be seated now it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the DNC to enforce a primary schedule in future election cycles.

[rucky]

6. Unfortunately, this would lead to having Scalito decide our nominee.

I really don't know what the states are trying to pull with this shit.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. Another solution: don't seat them

Mostly agreeing with Arkansas Granny, don't seat the delegates from MI. or the SuperD's.

Then subtract that number from the total required delegate count, so the rest can come up with a majority.

When MI voted, it was clear that the delegates wouldn't be seated, that the vote wouldn't count. Stick with that, don't waffle.

Being from MI, I'll refrain from an opinion about seating FL delegates.

:hi:

[Inchworm]

3. Next election MI and FL should just play by the rules

Lets hope a few of the rules change, if anything.

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is just silly. I'm sort of glad they both tried to be more important than they already are in the primaries. It made NC have some influence on the candidate selection process.

:)

[ORDem]

4. Why should Hillary and Obama get some arbitrary percentage of the MI

vote? Obama wasn't on the ballot. I say re-vote in both states or nada. Both states knowingly violated DNC rules. It's up to the voters in both states to correct that in their next election cycles.

[helderheid]

5. I'd agree but someone else pointed out that any dems in MI who voted R won't be eligible to re-vote.

[fadedrose]

8. I thought about that

In the end I couldn't vote R. My conscience wouldn't let me. Not fair to my party or the R's. I hate the R's voting in our primary.

But as an "uncommitted" voter, giving Obama 45% would be okay with me. The only people I can see really having a problem with this are those who voted "uncommitted" and meant their vote to go to Edwards or Biden, as I did. They're the only ones truly robbed in this primary if Obama is not their choice.

[fadedrose]

7. Makes too much sense which means they won't do it

The party leaders, the responsible people, should lose their "super" votes. The distribution of votes sounds about right.