DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the blank votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama’s complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them

It seems apparent at this stage that neither candidate will be able to come up with the total number of delegates to win from just pledged delegates. It also seems apparent that if either candidate takes the nomination based on super-delegate votes, there will be division within the party. Seating the delegates from MI and FLA will cause an outcry of foul play. Refusing to seat them risks alienating millions of voters from two states that will be crucial in the general election. It's a pickle.

Here's what I would do. Hold a re-vote under the following conditions: The re-vote could not be held before those states remaining have held their contests, but must be held within a week after that. (FLA and MI should not be allowed to "jump ahead" again, that's what started the whole mess in the first place.) Both candidates must agree to hold no campaign events in either state, nor spend any money advertising in them. Both candidates must agree to hold one televised debate in each state during the week before the re-vote. That should be the extent of their campaigning.

The re-votes must be primaries, rather than caucuses.

The DNC must suspend their rules, in this peculiar situation, to allow the re-votes to be winner-take-all contests. Since there are over 300 delegates at stake, and since both candidates will be within striking distance of the number needed to win, the re-votes would almost certainly put one of them over the top. (A clear-cut victory before the convention should be plenty of incentive for either candidate to agree to such a plan.)

Of course the irony would be that MI and FLA moved their primaries up so that they would have more influence in choosing the nominee, and this re-vote would achieve that objective and reward them for their impudence. So, one additional condition would have to be attatched. Both MI and FLA would be prohibited from hosting the nominating convention until the year 2020.

As to who should pay for all this, I think the cost should be divided between both candidates, the DNC, and the state parties. The candidates could use some of the money they've saved by not having to campaign in either state. The state parties should have to feel a financial consequence for bucking national party rules, and the DNC should foot the bill for coming up with such an ill-conceived punishment in the first place.

Who is paying for the expenses ? I need to ask one more question there is something Common in Osama and Obama which we have not found out yet....If he wins it will be bad USA...

Face it, the main reason some people are calling for seating MI and FL delegates all of a sudden now is that there's no other way for Senator Clinton to win this election except by changing the rules.

There was no outcry by Senator Clinton about the unfairness of these rules before she won the vote in those states, that is, until she started losing.

And the tough truth is that Senator Clinton is losing. She's trailing significantly in elected delegates and votes, and her recent victories in Ohio and Texas didn't significantly alter the counts.

Unless she changes the rules she already agreed on, in all likelihood, she'll enter the convention with fewer delegates than Senator Obama. And after 8 years about complaining about how the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people and installed GWB as President, it would be truly surprising if the superdelegates turned around and did just that.

Are you that ignorant or just plain lazy? What Osama and Obama have in common which we have not found out yet. What the...? Did you even take the time to the read the article or the other the posts before you wrote your comment? Its one thing to know the facts, its another to spread lies and slander a person good name. Mr. Fernando learn the facts or go somewhere else. Your stupidity is not welcome here.

First message posted here - thanks.

If Florida and Michigan were to vote and, thus, regain the ability to seat their pledged delegates, the number by which either candidate would need to win (the 50% + 1 number) would also go up to around 2,204. So even if they voted, it is highly unlikely that both would change the delegate math.

Asking the people of these states to vote again is akin to saying, "Ms Walsh, that article of yours didn't count. Go back, think it over, and write it again."

The people of these states voted in good faith. They did it on the only day that was provided to them, and should not be discarded because of disagreements between state officials and party bosses.

To my mind, the whole disjointed primary process(caucuses, primaries, caucuses and primaries, super delegates, crossover voting, etc.) is almost a joke, and most definitely is a failure of both the Democratic Party and state officials. It is not, however, something for which the voters should be penalized.

They broke the rules and must pay the consequences.

How interesting that we have a Republican governor in Florida and the Michigan governor, a Clinton supporter trying to have a do over. Makes you wonder what their real motives are.

I live in Michigan.

On the primary, knowing that only Hillary and 'undecided' were the only 2 choices, I voted for Huckabee.

Why? Low hanging fruit. If 'Huck' got the nomination he would be shown the door so fast that it would make his head spin (or so I hoped).

Would I like to change my vote to Obama? Oh yes... Would I like the state to pay millions for the ability to do that? If it meant stopping Hillary, YES.

As I said earlier, Granholm caused this mess by signing the legislation to move the date earlier. SHE should pay for it, her and her 'moderate republican' sycophants. How about the DeVos family paying? They'd love to screw up Michigan since slick Dick wasn't 's'elected governor...