Rumors of a FL & MI Solution?

At The Page, Mark Halperin has a very short article on a solution "being discussed" for Florida and Michigan.  I found it intriguing because he doesn't provide any detail or information as to who is discussing it or who is the source of the plan.

The solution is basically a quick and dirty negotiated split of delegates.

More over the fold...

Details of a possible delegate plan under discussion:–Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

The betting: Florida and Michigan delegates, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign would all — some reluctantly– accept this deal.

Then it would be over to you, Barack Obama.

http://thepage.time.com/...

Practically speaking, this is how I think the Florida and Michigan headache will go away, if at all. I don't think any kind of revote, other than a caucus, will ever happen in either state, especially Florida. I say that because there simply isn't enough time left for any of the creative re-vote plans currently being discussed to be implemented. There are a myriad of issues that need to be worked in these re-vote plans. For example, any revote plan needs to be approved by the DNC with 30 days to comment. We're also hearing that the DoJ could need up to 60 days to approve. Then there's legal issues in Florida that must be resolved, contracts to be let for someone to run the election, and the biggest issue, signature verification.  Signature verification is a deal killer. The state is not allowed to release copies of signature cards and voters will definitely be opposed to copies of their signatures being handed off to private companies or private parties.

The only practical and reasonable solution left is a caucus in both states. Michigan has alot of experience with caucuses so there shouldn't be an issue with one being done properly there. In Florida, which probably with Ohio, has the reputation of being most inept when it comes to election administration, running a caucus would be iffy at best.

So, after all is said and done, the best of all possible solutions is some sort of negotiated split between the two candidates.  In my opinion, any split must be consistent with the following:

Florida and Michigan broke the rules and there needs to be a penalty associated with it. If there is no penalty, the barn door is wide open to states flaunting the rules in the future.

That penalty should not be put on the shoulder of the voters in either state. It was not their fault. In my opinion, the fault lies squarely, 100% on the shoulders of elected state officials and party officials in both parties, in both states.

So, I don't have a problem with a solution like Halperin suggests:

1. Seat half the Florida delegation from Florida in the proportion they voted for each candidate in January, including Edwards.

2. Because Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan, split the Michigan delegation along the lines of 40/40/20 for Clinton/Obama/Edwards, or since Michigan knows how to run a caucus, let them run a caucus. They can easily do one before the end of April. I would ask each of the 3 campaigns which solution they prefer. This forces Edwards to make a choice and makes him the tie-breaker in the solution chosen.

3. I would go one step further than Halperin: Under any circumstance, the superdelegates from both states would not be allowed a vote at the convention. They are the ones that need to be punished. They were the leaders in both states that acted recklessly and irresponsibly and gambled away the votes of their constituents when they flaunted the rules and they should bear full responsibility and be held fully accountable.  My hunch is that even the voters of Florida and Michigan would resoundingly agree their state leaders need to be held accountable.