This whole Michigan and Florida thing has worried me from the very start last summer. Those of us who can allow reason to influence our view of this situation know that you can't simply abandon 44 electoral votes in the fall election by refusing to seat delegations from these two states. But you also can't allow such blatant, self-interested rule-breaking to stand unpunished. Most importantly, you can't allow such dubious results of uncontested elections to count for anything of such importance.
There are many ways this situation can be "resolved". Some are better than others. But I see a really bad scenario, the worst case in my opinion, coming down the pipe, and it scares me more than all of Hillary's party-killing attacks combined.
Option #1 - Seat the delegates as is. For obvious reasons, I think this is unacceptable. This is Hillary's starting position, but especially with Obama not even being a choice on the Michigan ballot, the results are at best suspect. I'm sure Hillary is not going to just "give" all of the "uncommitted" delegates right to Obama either. The hypocrisy of advocating for seating these delegates after repeatedly saying they should not be seated and would not count back in the fall is pretty sickening, but hardly astonishing.
I actually think this could happen in the end, however, but only if Obama chooses to let it happen. If Obama is far enough ahead that this delegate difference will not affect his substantial pledged delgate lead, and if he allowed to choose the "uncommitted" delegates, I could see him deciding to take the magnanimous route and asking for Hillary's delegates to be seated as a gesture of goodwill at the end of the primaries. This would look good to Clinton supporters, whose votes he will need in November, and to any unpledged superdelegates still out there. It could cement the nomination for him.
Option #2 - Refuse to seat the Michigan and Florida delgations. This would be an obvious catastrophe for the Democratic Party in general and for oru chances at the Presidency in the fall. A Democrat may be able to win without Florida, but not without Michigan and Florida. The math is far too difficult.
I had a friend say this to me this morning. "Fuck Florida and Michigan. They were told they'd lose their delegates. They took that bet. They lost. You have to follow through with punishment when you're working with children."
To which I responded, "Those "children" represent 44 electoral votes in the November election. Don't beat them to death, dad."
We have to allow Florida and Michigan to be represented at the convention. The question is how those delegates should be chosen and allocated. I've heard people say to split them 50/50. That seems too arbitrary to me. I've heard peopel say to split them according to either the national popular vote or delegate count. Less arbitrary but still not at all representative of anything having to do with those two unique states. There's really only one way to do it.
Option #3 - Revote. A new election process to determine delegates. This is within the Party rules, so there is no appearance of caving to the rule-breakers. It is representative of the will of the people of these two states.
The drawbacks? It's expensive to run another primary. $12-15 million in each state from the numbers I've heard. The GOP legislature in Florida won't pay for it. The Dems in Michigan won't pay for it. The only way a full primary could be fielded again would be for contributions to be made by the states, the DNC, and the campaigns to share the costs. I'm not confident that such an arrangement can be worked out. I've heard people say that it is rewarding Michigan and Florida for misbehavior by giving them such an important role to play in the nomination by allowing a revote at all at this point. I can see the logic, but I think that since all votes count the same in the grand scheme, whether they vote in February or June is irrelevant. So long as the vote itself is fair and representative of the people's will.
How about a "caucus"? And we're not talking about an Iowa-style caucus in Michigan. It would basically be a cheapey election with paper ballots conducted by the Party, not the state board of elections, and it would be significantly cheaper (about 1/3 the cost of a full primary, from what I've heard). Hillary objects to caucuses, and I guess I can understand why since she's perfomed so pitifully in caucuses thus far. However, like I said, this is not your average "caucus". The truth is that in Michigan, it would operate in no significant way differently from a primary. But since Hillary doesn't seem to want a revote at all, she'll continue to push this line about how unrepresentative caucuses are.
Which brings us to MY BIGGEST FEAR. What happens if the Michigan Party and the DNC agree to hold a revote caucus and Hillary boycotts the caucus?
You see, I don't really care much, as an Obama supporter, about whether Florida gets its revote or not. I'd be OK with seating the Florida delegates, because even with a revote and Obama having time to campaign in Florida, I doubt he'd gain more than 10 delegates or so more than he already won in the January 29 primary.
BUT MICHIGAN, that's different. Obama's name was not on the ballot. He officially has ZERO delegates in Michigan, and can't count on all of the "uncommitted" delegates going to him, at least not at this point. There must be at the VERY LEAST an agreement that those uncommitted belong to Obama, and it would be much better if there were a true election where his NAME appeared on the ballot.
So what happens if Hillary boycotts the revote and TWO DIFFERENT MICHIGAN DELEGATIONS show up in Denver? If you think what Hillary is doing now is splintering the Party, imagine what that would mean.
Any of the above options depend on ONE THING to make them work. AGREEMENT OF THE CANDIDATES. Obama will not agree to seat the January delegates except under the type of situation I outlined. Hillary will never agree to completely exclude Michiagn and Florida from the process, and neither should anyone agree to that. A revote will only be a successful resolution if both campaigns agree that it is a fair way to decide the delegations.
If Hillary flatly rejects a revote in Michigan, that's it for the Democratic candidate's legitimacy, I'm afraid.