Far be it for me to help Democrats, but there are some basic rules of fair play, negotiations and Game Theory that many of the Democrats floating proposals for dealing with the issue of Michigan and Floriday need to heed.

1.  When you bring the candidates in for negotiations, the proposals you offer cannot deterministically choose a candidate.  You cannot ask a candidate to agree to a plan that will give up his bid for a nomination.  This does not mean that you cannot offer something that will likely cause a candidate to lose.  It means you cannot offer something that will certainly cause a candidate to lose.  As an example, as of this point, a 50-50 division of delegates will likely be advantageous to Obama, but it would not certainlty doom Hillary.  If such an offer is made soon, that is fine as long as when the offer is accepted, there is still a chance for Hillary to win.  That doesn't mean that Hillary should accept such an offer; it means that the offer can be made.  Once it becomes mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with such an offer, that offer should not be made.  The subsequent elections can doom her chances, not he acceptance of the offer.  You cannot make an offer that dooms the candidtate.

2.  You cannot allow someone to benefit from breaking the rules.  The rules are made ahead of the contest.  Everyone knows the rules going in.  Everyone knows the consequences of breaking the rules.  The states knew the consequences when they scheduled their primaries.  The candidates knew this when one pulled his name from the ballot and the other did not.  Obama was justified in taking his name off the ballots in Michigan and Florida if that is what the rules required.  To allow the primary results to stand, punishes Obama for going along with the rules and rewards both the states and Hillary for breaking the rules.  Hillary may be known for breaking rules, but we don't need to reward her.  It could be argued that the expectations were that the rules would not be followed and that after some negotiating and lobbying, the results from these primaries could be honored. This argues for consistent enforcement of the rules.  The expectation that rules would be ignored is poisonous.  Otherwise, the rules mean nothing.

3.  Results of a contest where the rules were not followed are always tainted.  This goes beyond the occasional asterisk in the record books.  The results may be rendered meaningless.  It may be argued that the people made their choices and that they should be listened to.  But without Obama on the ballot, without active campaigning by both candidates, the decision is not a fair one.  Of course, if they made decisions based on strategy, that is one thing.  But if they pulled one TV spot because they were following the rules, that the campaign is tainted.  The people have not made their choice.  The people have reacted to an unfair camaign.

This means that the only fair thing to do is to have new elections.  They do have to be fair, and secure. Funny how democrats are worried more about security in their primaries that in general elections, but that is for another post.  It also may mean that the New Hampshire primary results should be attenuated to apply the rules.  It may mean that some of the Republican contests would be affected.  Whatever the rules say should be followed talmudically.