You can't change the rules AFTER the game [View All]

[ButterflyBlood]

Which is exactly what seating the delegates from FL and MI would be doing. Imagine an exhibition game held before the regular season. As a result, one team's best players opt to sit it out for various reasons or to prepare for the main season. That team loses the game. Then after the game is held, the league decides it was a real game and will include it in the record anyway. Is that fair?

Of course not. Neither would be ex post facto declaring the FL and MI elections valid. In one state Obama wasn't even on the ballot, with many of his supporters (and probably Clinton's as well) figuring to vote in the GOP side instead to influence their primary as there'd be no point in their side. Florida was one of the few states where GOP turnout in the primary beat Dem turnout. Why? Many Dems didn't think it was worth the time to vote in a meaningless election. Now declaring that a valid election is unfair to all those who sat out.

Furthermore there was no campaign. Voters were not exposed to the info most voters do before making a choice. The fact is clear: The elections held in FL and MI were not fair or valid. If they want delegates, then they can hold new ones, which would be held under fair circumstances. If they aren't willing to do this, then they go without delegate selections. But there is nothing fair about about legitimizing the results of an unfair election.