Ben -

Amen!

There's such a dearth of in-depth analysis on this issue. The irony is that your succinct post sums it all up.

The party officials in the respective states made an egotistical, illegal land-grab in the hope that they'd look heroic to their voters - NOT.

As a fellow Floridian I must agree with oceankat; however, I still don't think that the delegation should be seated. I know too many people (for both candidates) that did not vote because they were told that it would not matter as the delegates would not be counted at the convention... Thus, I think that disenfranchisement happens in either case notwithstanding another vote in this state.

Ah, yes. This post originally took the form of a letter to the editor of the Detroit Free Press, and I clearly should have added quite a few more detail (especially those relating to Florida) before I posted it here. However, the thrust of my argument--the belief that seating Floridian delegates "would both encourage future violations of national Democratic Party rulings by state parties and effectively demonstrate to the nation at large that the DNC is willing to compromise on principle"--still stands.

The good folks over at "Make it Count Florida" contend that "the primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority’s throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles."

In other words, the Floridian Democrats chose to vote in favor of what they deemed to be acceptable legislation when they could have easily and uniformly opposed it with a frank and public admission that Democratic legislators would be quick to reintroduce legislation regarding a paper trail for all future elections without any strings attached. Unfortunately for the Democrats of Florida, the party leadership in the legislature took the easy way out by knowingly voting for a bill which violated DNC primary rules. Consequently, it is impossible to argue that it would not have been possible for the legislature to support the idea of a paper trail and, at the same time, resist the bill in question. Yes, it could have been somewhat "embarrassing" for legislators to be placed in such a position, but, as the DNC rules required only that the Democrats oppose--not kill--the legislation in question, it would certainly not have been "futile"--even in the event that the Republicans successfully passed the bill. And don't even get me started on whether opposition to questionable omnibus legislation is "against democratic principles."

In fairness you should point out the Property Tax initiative that was also on the ballot in January. I don't know if there were any exit polls asking why voters came out, or if there has been an analysis of how many ballots on the Dem side had a vote on the initiative but left the primary selections blank. But simply citing turn out numbers does not suggest that Floridians were coming out in protest in order for their voices to be heard.

Michigan and Florida are as different as night and day on this issue.

It is correct that Florida's legislature changed the date of their primary. But in Michigan it was our state party leadership that initiated the change and the legislature went along. Specifically, it was Senator Carl Levin that spearheaded this effort and state party chair Mark Brewer that picked up the ball and ran with it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed on and the legislators just followed along. Everyone thought it would be a grand idea to "draw attention" to the "unfairness of the primary season" and how "Iowa and New Hampshire had an inordinate effect on the process".

As a Michigan resident, I've written to my Gov. and congressman about this and received platitudes in response. Essentially saying that their need to make a point was much more important than my need to feel represented. Also, that I shouldn't worry that I was so pissed at them that I didn't even turn out to vote, because the nominee would seat our illegitimate delgates at the convention. (That was, of course, before the DNC cancelled the Michigan delegates hotel rooms)

The ultimate irony in all of this is that Florida's primary was originally scheduled for March 4th and Michigan's primary was supposed to be on March 9th. Michigan would have been a HUGE battleground and would have received loads of positive attention. Now all we can do is campaign in Ohio (and maybe Indiana) for our candidate of choice and watch the process from the sideline.

The Clinton campaign would strongly resist re-voting through caucuses, which they've suggested are unfair and unrepresentative, and in which their win/loss record has been dismal. That said, if HRC drops out it may be possible for the DNC to convince FL/MI to hold caucuses by early June. It's been suggested that caucuses in FL are unworkable given the size of the state and the electorate, noting as well that FL doesn't have a particularly stellar record in recent years in organizing elections.

I think the conventional wisdom at this point is that if we have a clear nominee before the convention, the DNC will seat the delegations regardless. The delegates may be prevented from casting votes for the nominee, but at least they'll be involved in party business and still suffer some penalty for scheduling their contests contrary to DNC rules.

I agree. Well stated.