Crossposted with edits from Open Left, where I haven't yet switched my handle.
The positions of the various candidates regarding Florida's pledged delegates now appear to have been staked out as follows: Hillary wants her 105-67 margin to stand, while Obama wants the delegation to be split evenly, presumably at approximately 92.5 apiece (including the 13 slots that went to Edwards.)
While I continue to believe that a mail-in ballot is possible, there are legal and political problems, as well as what is still a significant cost. There's talk about a negotiated solution -- what might work?
Split the difference. But lest that seem arbitrary, the reason it can work is that there's a principled way to do it. Here's the plan, below the fold:
As an overview, half of the delegates will be awarded along the lines of the Clinton plan and half using the Obama plan. The trick is that the use of the Obama plan is not a compromise with Obama, but rather the imposition of a penalty on Florida for violating DNC rules. In fact, Florida would be given two choices after searing half their delegates according to the results of their dead-whistle primary: seat no additional delegates, or seat them all with 50-50 apportionment between the campaigns. Here's a step-by-step menu to solving the Florida Primary impasse:
(1) Penalize Florida by keeping all of its delegates off of the Credentials committee.
(2) Penalize Florida half of its original allocation of delegates, leaving them with 93 (rounding up from 92.5) to be determined by primary.
(3) The initial bargaining position is that Hillary gets 53 of those delegates (rounding up from half of 105), Obama gets 34 (rounding up from half of 67), and Edwards gets 6 (rounding down from half of 13.) As an alternative, Edwards can be left out; the allocation is then 58 for Hillary and 35 for Obama, reflecting Hillary's getting 62% of the vote between the two of them.
(4) Then give Florida the option -- which they will probably take -- of adding back in the delegates that were penalized, with the delegates split evenly among the candidates. Hillary gets 46 delegates and Obama 46.
(5) The total pledged delgation, therefore, would be either 99-80-6 (C-O-E) or 104-81 (C-O).
(6) Based on the current Wikipedia totals, Hillary picks up 8 superdelegates to Obama's 4, with 11 yet to be determined. Each superdelegate's votes could be cut in half, for all I care, but to avoid creating more enmity it may be better not to do so.
Why Obama should go for this
Even though this means his margin decreases by perhaps 32 delegates (23 plus an estimated nine-vote superdelegate margin for Hillary), this is probably as good a deal as Obama will get without blocking any resolution at all. Most important for him as a general election candidate, it puts the Florida problem to bed. Obama's practical problem is that Hillary is ahead by 17 points in the polls; a revote gives him the same numbers as before, and hurts him because she has that much more momentum going into the election.
Obama's position should be: "Look, a revote most likely isn't going to change the delegate allocation significantly anyway. If we do this, we can avoid the various legal battles being threatened, and rather than making the Florida Democratic Party pay for a new election that they don't want to have, we can use that money to beat John McCain."
Obama gets to be a hero by accepting a deal that non-trivially disadvantages him; this helps him with the superdelegates. But it also doesn't disadvantage him too much, because his lead can easily absorb a 32-vote loss in Florida. It's the prospect of losing 40 delegates in the popular vote, and maybe another 10-vote margin in superdelegates, that could create serious problems for him.
Finally, this plan allows Obama to say that Michigan, by contrast, should have a revote, but now we as a party only have to pay for one election rather than two. This is frugal, fair (because Obama wasn't on the ballot), and wise, because the polls in Michigan show them tied.
Why Hillary should go for this
Her preference would be not to do so -- she should want a revote and the prospect of a 50 delegate swing, plus a popular vote pile-on. But if Obama agrees to this, she may not have much choice but to acquiesce. Here are the reasons:
(1) Her position that the original vote should stand as counted is untenable. Not even Florida voters want that, it's unethical to allow Florida to count that much with no penalty, and Obama won't agree to it in any event.
(2) Her alternative argument, for having a revote, is expensive, possible illegal, lacks the support of the state Democratic caucus, and probably won't change the results much anyway. (Its main significance would be giving her momentum going into the convention.)
(3) Some penalty -- which at Florida's choice could mean either not sending half its delegates or sending the other half 50-50 -- is appropriate here, as I think even Floridians understand. You don't see them complaining about what the Republicans did. And effectively halfing their clout in this election is a non-trivial penalty, even though I wish it was stronger.
(4) On paper, Hillary is getting the better end of the deal, one that is about as good as she's likely to get with a revote and 50% penalty. Because her additional benefit from a revote -- momentum -- is not a legitimate consideration, Obama would look like the reasonable one here if she turned it down. So, once he's made this offer, her counter is a plan that costs everyone money (and potentially pushing a mail-in ballot system that people don't trust) for very little advantage.
(5) As a result of all of the above, if she did not agree to this compromise she would probably fare poorly with the superdelegates. Obama can outflank her by being openly reasonable and taking away the issue, which they'd appreciate. They don't want to deal with Florida any more. If Hillary blocks that resolution, they won't like it. If Obama promotes this proposal, it pretty much forces her hand.
Conclusion
I admit that I'm an Obama partisan and one reason I feel comfortable promoting this resolution is that I like how the math turns out. A candidate with a 136 pledged delegate lead, per Chris Bowers's calculations, can afford to lose 32 of those delegates in the interest of peace. But even if I weren't for Obama, the notion of splitting the difference between Clinton's proposed resolution and Obama's proposed resolution makes sense, especially when Obama's proposed resolution takes the form of a penalty legitimately imposed on the state for breaking the rule. And I think we'd all -- except the Clinton campaign -- like to see the Florida issue put to bed for the year.
I'll look forward to comments and reactions.