I’m fine with that, as long as they seat the delegates in an even split between the two nominees so the votes don’t mean anything. Otherwise, it’s a no go. Not when those states didn’t have real contests. It doesn’t work that way, and anybody suggesting otherwise doesn’t have their head screwed on straight.
But here’s one reason to dismiss this…the NAACP head says failing to seat the delegates would disenfranchise minority voters…
In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed “great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the states’ delegations could remind voters of the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries,” he said.
The DNC penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries to earlier dates in violation of party rules. Both states were stripped of their delegates, and the party’s presidential candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state. Florida lost 185 delegates; Michigan, 128.
Since then, facing the prospect of a drawn-out delegate battle with Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has pushed hard for both states’ delegations to be seated. Clinton won Florida’s primary Jan. 29 and Michigan’s Jan. 15, but was the only candidate to appear on the Michigan ballot after the other candidates removed their names.
Folks, this would disenfranchise an entire state, not just minorities, so this argument is pretty thin. My guess is this is going nowhere fast or they will seat them, but split them right down the middle as I suggested earlier.