I'm going to do something very dangerous. I'm going to predict that the rules committe that meets tomorrow will be rational. That is a dangerous prediction in that it has been my experience that human beings, especially when it comes to politics, are rarely rational.
Nevertheless, let's look at the problem, the arguments, the counterarguments, and the only rational solution the committee can come to. This doesn't mean they will choose the rational solution, but I predict they will come close.
The problem: Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. They were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway. Currently, their delegates do not count and the number of delegates needed to win is thus much lower than it would have been had their votes counted.
All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in these two states and both Hillary and Barack stated publicly that they accepted the fact that the votes in these states would not count. Barack and several others even took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Hillary did not. Hillary won in Michigan, against "uncommitted." In Florida all the names were on the ballot and Hillary also won.
The Hillary arguments: Since it became apparent that Hillary could not possibly win the nomination without the delegates in Michigan and Florida, she has been arguing that the DNC should not enforce the rules she agreed to, rules that were written with the assistance of her supporters. Furthermore, she argues that the votes should be assigned as they were cast, which means that Barack Obama would get no delegates from Michigan and no penalty would be assigned to these states for violating the rules.
Part of her argument is that the Democratic Party should never have instituted these rules because they have disenfranchised the voters of these states. She further argues that the voters of these two states will be mad at the Democrats if their delegates don't count, and may vote for McCain in the Fall as a result.
The counterargument: Those who oppose Hillary's argument, including Obama, say that everyone agreed to play by these rules and that has affected strategy. If Obama knew Florida and Michigan counted, he would have campaigned differently, spending time there to introduce himself to voters in order to have an equal chance against the more well known Clinton.
Furthermore, he argues, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes for him were automatically thrown out. He also points to the fact that many voters, including his supporters, did not even vote as they knew the election wouldn't count. To now count the votes of these states would be to disenfranchise those who stayed home, accepting the rules, and would penalize all those states that scheduled their primaries later in order to abide by the rules.
Others in the Party argue that to threaten to penalize these states, but then not penalize them at all, would be to open the process up to chaos in coming years as more and more states moved their primaries up to ridiculously early dates, making the primary season longer and more expensive than ever. Unless these states are penalized, they argue, the DNC will lose all control of the primary process.
The rational solution: First, the states must experience a consequence for violating the rules. Since traditionally that violation has been to strip a state of half of its delegates, that seems a sensible solution this year. The delegates will still be seated, giving their state a part in the nomination process, but not as much power as they would have had if they had adhered to the rules. Even Clinton campaign manager Terry McCauliffe promised to strip Michigan of half of their delegates in 2004 when they threatened to move their primary up, so if this solution wasn't understood by the Clinton campaign, Terry could explain it to them.
Second, because the states were in violation of the rules, and the candidates acted with a good faith belief that the votes would not count, and planned their campaign strategies accordingly, these states cannot be allowed to decide the election and overturn the will of the other 48 states.
Again, with Obama ahead by almost 200 delegates, a seating of half of the delegates from the states will not overturn the current status of the race and thus seems sensible.
Third, some accomodation must be made for the fact that only Clinton's name was on the ballot in Michigan. She can't be allowed to benefit from this unusual circumstance as it is obvious that were Obama's name on the ballot, he would have received a considerable number of votes. The rules committee can give him all of the "uncommitted" or some portion of the uncommitted that is acceptable to the committee and to Obama. (One unique solution I recently heard was to take a series of polls in Michigan - and perhaps even Florida - and assign delegates according to the results of the polling data. That seems reasonable as well.)
So that, to me, is reasonable. It achieves the goals of punishing the states so as to prevent future chaos, seating the delegations so as not to totally disenfranchise the voters who weren't responsible for the policy, and arriving at a reasonable vote assignment in Michigan where the frontrunner was not even on the ballot.
This is what I predict the committee will do - regardless of how emotional Hillary's supporters get, and how forcefully her surrogates argue her position. Her position is irrational , unjust, and completely self-serving, and if the committee members are at all rational, they will not give her everything she wants, but will try to find a reasonable and sensible compromise.
