I noticed virtually the exact same article written by Corzine at Huff Post. Actually he admits it is a repost from a few days ago. Rendell has done the same. I think this is simply a last gasp attempt to get people to swallow the ridiculous path for Clintons victory. It is embarrassing for any but the blindly ambitious. It diminishes one who has already done much harm to her image.

If only the Democrats had the same system for choosing a nominee that the Republicans do, Hillary would be in a stronger position.

Well, not exactly. If the rules were different, a rational campaign--and the Obama campaign is nothing if not extremely rational--would allocate its considerable resources differently, wouldn't it? So the results might be different, huh?

And, if the rules said that Michigan and Florida were going to be allowed to seat delegates, Obama would have been on the ballot in both, and campaigned there, wouldn't he?

So, who really knows what might have been? We only know what has actually happened, and the answer to that is: Obama has a nearly insurmountable lead. Maybe having a President who learns what the rules are, and manages to win under those rules, would be a refreshing change?

1) Get rid of the electoral college system ..... it is obsolete and distorts and displaces the will of the majority. Go to a simple majority vote system.

2) Get rid of the primary system . The primary system itself has become ripe with corruption and inequities. Some have caucases, some have "voter" primaries. We know what happened with Michigan and Florida. There were irregularities in Iowa and Nevada and who knows where else.

3) All states vote during the same period for one vote and the one who gets the majority of votes wins.

4)Tuesday elections are a hold-over when that was considered the best time for a farmer to get to town in his horse drawn wagon to vote. We certainly can afford, on such an important matter, to give the public at least two days to vote .......preferably a weekend to give the working class time to vote.

5)National Guard present, if necessary, in some precincts to insure voters are not harassed or misinformed.

6) Choose a period, ex. 6 or 12 months away from election .....

candidates official positions listed on websites and viewable on public tv ........ weekly debates of sufficient duration to allow each candidate to have equal time and respond to a question with sufficient depth.

7) Paper ballots (eletronic data can always be manipulated without leaving evidence of tampering).

The number of problems with the election process in this country is numerous ....... simply because the people in power and their lackey judges do not want true democracy or majority rule.

Changes to make the system workable will have to be made on multiple fronts.

thanks for pointing that out - though it makes your bon mot moot. that switching the dom and sub clauses reversed the meaning was (to my way of (grammatical) thinking) brilliant. anyway, the hillary supporters just make me mad, and when i get mad i get stupid - and who likes being stupid? i think i'll just do what barnum suggested, exeunt to the egress. things will go along fine without me and i can always come back after Pennsylvania.

If only votes for Hillary counted twice...Hillary would be ahead.

If Obama had removed his name from all the other state ballots...Hillary would be ahead.

If we just ran the Michigan results 50 times...Hillary would be ahead.

I think Hillary, her supporters and staff are simply too stunned to think straight. They have yet to grasp the reality of events. She was announted back in '06, she was inevitable, Don't Stop Believin'...crash and burn. Adapt or die.

A few things:

1. When the candidates (including Clinton) signed a pledge to the DNC last year, they pledged not to campaign or PARTICIPATE in the two non-primaries. Most candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot, Clinton did not. There's nothing that says "participation" more than demanding delegates from those two non-primaries. That makes Clinton both dishonest and hypocritical when it comes to those two states.

2. After those two primaries neither Dem state party was interested in do-overs until it was clear that the DNC would not cave in. They stood firm. To do otherwise would expose the state party leaders as having needlessly denied their voters the right to participate in selecting the Democratic candidate. After the faux primaries, Clinton flipflopped and threw her support behind the results that would benefit her. That further encouraged the two state parties to stand firm. In short, the Clinton campaign's encouragement helped to make do-overs impossible. She played against the system and not only lost delegates from those states but helped the state parties to deprive their states a say in the race.

3. I am not sure what the details of final plans were in either state but most plans that surfaced disallowed anyone who voted in the Republican primaries the right to participate in any revote. That is, people who were told that those January primaries didn't count would be punished because they believed that they didn't count and would not be allowed to participate in any primary based on a decision made after the fact. Not particularly democratic. Unless details like that are worked out the do-overs are unfair.

4. Clinton's campaign and many of her supporters (I am thinking about FLA congressional delegation) turned down various do-over plans that would have been affordable but were deemed as not favorable to Clinton (think: caucus).

5. Unlike what other commenters have said, Howard Dean does not have the authority to impose primaries on states. The FLA Republicans made it clear that the state was not going to pay for another primary. There were a number of problems with some of the do-over plans. For example, there was a question about the constitutionality of mail-in primaries per Florida state law.

6. One purpose of not front-loading primaries in January is to give voters across the country a chance to learn about the candidates. Clinton, being the best-known candidate, would be favored early on. There is no guarantee that the results of the false January primaries would have been the same later on in the process. That 40% of the people who showed up to vote in Michigan did not vote for a candidate suggests that she would not get 55% in any do-over. If Florida is anything like the rest of the country, Clinton's win would at least be a lot closer. In any case, the false results in January have no relevance to the voters' current support of the two candidates, or how they would vote if both candidates campaigned in the two states. The fairest solution at this time would be to award equal delegations to the two remaining candidates.

7. Those Democratic leaders in both states who encouraged moving up the primaries should not be allowed to participate in this convention.