What do you think would be the consequences be for the democratic party if Michigan and Florida delegates are not seated? I forsee a defection to mccain as backlash against the democratic party if Dean does not come up with a compromise to seat those delegates. I think florida should be seated as it is now since hillary won that state. Michigan should split the delegates evenly between Obama and Hillary because Obama was not on the ballot.

Both delegations should be seated according to the results. The fact that Obama wasn't on the ballot is irrelevant. It's not as if voters didn't know he was running. They could've written him in.

I think the rules should be tossed out at this point because of the potential of dienfrashised voters.

The DNC has no right to set dates, since these primaries are funded with tax dollars. Until such time that the DNC and RNC pay their share of holding these primaries, they need to quit dictating terms; such as who is allowed to vote and the date held.

The blame falls entirely on the state arms of the DNC. The rules were clear, they broke them. I agree that the problem is that the voters are the ones who suffer the consequences, but if the DNC has any interest in salvaging its already destroyed reputation, it cannot seat the delegates from those states because the precedent that action would set essentially means that their own rules are not enforced and can be broken at will. The people of Michigan and Florida are getting the shaft this time around, but they have not been disenfranchised from the general election. The best thing that can happen is that the state arms of the DNC get their heads handed to them on platters by the people they theorhetically represent. In this instance, you have to take the long view in terms of precedent and future elections. Seating the delegates is not the answer.

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

It is to the answer. The DNC has no right to dictate how tax dollars are spent. If they wish to control their selection process, then they need to start paying for the costs of holding these primaries.

They can either tag onto a state election (accepting the date set by that state) and pay their share of the cost for holding that election or they can hold their own election and pay the entire cost.

As long as the taxpayers are funding these primaries, the DNC and the RNC need to shut the hell up.

So why have a DNC or RNC at all? What is the purpose of these if not to set party rules and enforce them?

The state arms of the DNC agreed to the rules, then they blatantly broke them. It's cut and dry. Regardless of how it should be, this is how it is. The state arms answer to the DNC. The other 48 state arms didn't seem to have a problem abiding by the rules. Again, the precedent you want to set instantly drains away any remaining authority the DNC has. If your argument is to destroy the DNC and create a system from the ground up that actually makes sense, then that's definitely the best way to do it, and maybe that's a great idea. In fact, I could get behind that if I thought it could be done. Actually, hell yeah, that's an awesome idea! Burn DNC burn!


THE SYSTEMATIC DISMANTLING OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM BEGINS HERE

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

I have no problem with them having party rules. My problem with them is their use of tax dollars to pay for their selection process. The taxpayers shouldn't be funding these primaries; the political parties should.

My argument is to remove the taxpayer from the process; nothing more. I have no love for either party. They can both rot in hell for all I care.