You don't see how a privately run election presents obvious potential conflicts of interest, greater corruption, etc?

It's not an election; it's a selection to see who'll represent a private political party. This is not an appropriate use of tax dollars. The parties should pay their own way.

Correct why have them. They are not a form of goverment. They are private entities, and should have no input how a state handles it's own affairs.
This mess falls squarely on Howard dean!!!!!!!!!! What an Idiot!!!!

If Florida and Mi. are not counted I hope they swing to McCain teach Dean and the National Party a lesson. See if a Party leader ever tries to silent the peoples vote again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Obama is giving all of that private money back now, and going with public financing like he promised?

Didn't think so...

Hypocrites.....

Typical of the democrat party. Trying to decide who can vote and who can't.

I'm not going to argue with you about Dean's idiocy, however, he is not the reason Michigan and Florida are in the situation they are in. Those state's DNC arms agreed to the rules, then they broke them. Dean's hands are tied. If he seats the delegates, it cripples the DNC's ability to ever enforce anything. If Dean doesn't seat the delegates, then the voters lose their voice in the primary. This falls on the DNC folks in those two states. They knew the rules, knew the consequences, and broke them. They got greedy trying to position themselves to decide the candidate, and now they should suffer the consequences of that mistake. Unfortunately, the people get the consequences first, but they certainly have a chance in the future to send those short-sighted idiots at the DNC straight into obscurity. Look beyond one election and the choice is obvious.

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

The Republicans did the same thing. They penalized states that voted early by stripping them of 50% of their delegates.

Again, the issue is whether private political parties who use tax dollars to fund their selection process have a right to dictate terms to the taxpayers who fund that process.

Private money hasn't sponsored a single primary.

Thanks for playing.

Your argument is that since their is no office, there is no election?

The purpose of a primary is to determine which candidate will represent a political party in the general election. No one has been elected to an office yet. Why should the taxpayers fund this private process?

Funding elections for local, state and federal offices is an appropriate use of tax dollars. Funding the selection process to determine who the candidates will be is not.