I say just halve them. I stay in Michigan and was disgusted by the decision to hold it early. She should get the biggest part and he get the rest.

Sent by DeQuan | 9:38 AM ET | 05-30-2008

They should seat half the delgates and the split should be 50/50 for Florida with Michigan pledging at the convention.

Sent by Guest | 9:56 AM ET | 05-30-2008

Yeah, don't vote for the DNC members whom you elected to run your state. They were making grumblings about doing this for years before this primary, with the DNC specifically saying they would strip the delegates. Why didn't the public in these states say "Uh, we don't want this"?

The problem with any solution is that Clinton will continue to cry in the sandbox because she has made it clear she wants 100% seated and 100% proportioned to her.

Sent by Leigh Cutler | 10:41 AM ET | 05-30-2008

The biggest frustration to me is not feeling the vote was really accurate, as I mentioned, a lot of people did not bother voting because they assumed it would not count. However to do a re-vote seems wrong now because it would not reflect what everyone's vote would have been then. Yet not counting them at all is wrong too. Splitting them evenly would be, as Laura C mentioned to me when we spoke, almost like they don't count either.

It's an annoying situation, to be sure!

I ultimately feel we, the democratic voters of Florida, have been disenfranchised by a decision made by our Republican led legislature, that our party then punished us for.

Meh.

Sent by Kerstin Upmeyer (Kittydew) | 10:43 AM ET | 05-30-2008

"a decision made by our Republican led legislature"

And how did the Democrats vote on this?
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/floorvote.aspx?VoteId=8069&BillId=35049&

Sent by Marc Naimark | 11:54 AM ET | 05-30-2008

I agree that the situation is annoying, but I think the solution is fairly straightforward. DNC rules reportedly limit "punishment" to half of each state's delegates, so they have to seat at least that many. I say seat them all and give them half a vote. Assign the delegates proportionally to the votes each candidate received during the "unsanctioned" primaries. There is no reason that I am aware of to think that either Clinton or Obama supporters decided to vote or not in different proportions. So, while more people may have voted if the primaries were officially sanctioned, the proportions remain the same. While the candidates would have campaigned in each state in order to win a greater proportion of votes, we have no idea how that would have turned out.It doesn't resolve the nomination, but then I don't think officially sanctioned primaries in these states would have resolved it anyway.

I think they should vote it out at the convention -- that is what it was for anyway. If it isn't, then do away with the whole voting at the convention thing anyway. Just treat it like a band having a new album drop and move on.

Sent by Gary | 12:11 PM ET | 05-30-2008

Marc, Yeah, I know the Dems went along with it too, I'm not happy about that either.

Sent by Kerstin Upmeyer (Kittydew) | 12:40 PM ET | 05-30-2008

First, Clinton agrees with the DNC inre Michigan & Florida. Now, with the nomination hanging in the balance (and possibly over the breach), now she's singing a different song about having every vote count. Blah, blah, blah.

Question: is this kind of double-talking, "I stand firm in my convictions until it doesn't suit me," Marchiavellianism what we should expect from a Clinton administration? I just need to know what I can expect, should the unforseeable happen?

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:03 PM ET | 05-30-2008

As a resident of Florida, I was so excited to vote in my first primary (I am 22, but I didn't vote in the 2000 election). However, when I heard that my vote wasn't going to count, I chose not to waste my gasoline (college student + $4.00 per gallon= poor house) and I didn't vote. If I knew then that my vote may have counted, I would have done my civic duty. I don't believe that the votes should be counted, specifically in Florida, or we should hold a new primary. Just my thoughts...

Sent by Allison | 3:31 PM ET | 05-30-2008

Perhaps the ire of Floridians and Michiganders would be better aimed at the entire nominating system, and not their perception of particular unfairness? But given the lack of reaction to the 2000 fiasco (other than deciding that Diebold paperless hackable touchscreens were the panacea), I doubt that the events of this nominating season will result in meaningful change.

Sent by Marc Naimark | 4:49 AM ET | 05-31-2008