A few days ago it seemed that there was a developing consensus in favor of a mail-in re-vote in Florida and Michigan. But that consensus seems to be breaking down. It is going to be very hard to negotiate rules in the middle of a campaign, because the rules could easily determine the outcome and the outcome is a zero-sum game: every rule that helps one side hurts the other. In the absence of agreement, Clinton falls back on the demand that delegates be seated as if the elections were legitimate and Obama falls back on an insistence that the delegations be seated with a 50/50 split.
I think it is now better to go back to the idea, suggested but not required by DNC rules, that 1/2 of each states delegates be seated, with the split determined by the January elections. There is a hard problem of how to deal with Obama's absence from the ballot in Michigan. I think the obvious answer is to treat the 55 "uncommitted" MI delegates as Obama delegates; this is not perfect, but the uncommitted votes were quite strongly "anti-Clinton" votes ("better no one than her".)
The effect of such a split would be, I believe, a net gain of about 33 delegates for Clinton. That is: demconwatch.com shows a 121 pledged delegate decrease in Obama's margin when they include MI and FL. Giving the 55 uncommitted delegates to Obama reduces Clinton's margin to 66. Cut that in half and you get 33.
The advantages of the split decision are:
- It is an obvious "compromise" that doesn't give away the store to anyone.
- The split mirrors the Republican decision in MI and FL, and so shouldn't give the Repubs any general election advantage in MI and FL (whereas "ignoring the vote" might hurt Dems a bit.)
- On the Clinton side, her supporters can now claim "legitimate" victory in MI and FL, and she gains in the delegate count.
- On the Obama side, he doesn't face the possibility of two fresh "big state" loses late in the process. Further, Obama's current delegate lead is so large that he can easily absorb the loss of 33 delegates.
- In net, a split leaves the status quo pretty much in place: Clinton can claim to win the "big states" and Obama can claim a still insurmountable lead in earned delegates.
- On the other hand, a re-vote would give MI and FL the spotlight at both the beginning and end of the process, which seems to much positive attention for rule-breakers.
- A re-vote would prolong the process of choosing a nominee, which we don't need.
- An on-the-cheap mail-in vote might go awry, causing more conflict in the party.