yeah, because a good chunk of the superdelegates support hillary. hmm.. no! I think that FL deserves no punishment because this was all GOP controlled, but MI, yes, something is legitimate!

The easiest thing to do would seat the delegations at 1/2 their representation and give Obama MI's "Uncommitted" votes. It would yield Clinton a net gain, but not nearly enough for her to overtake Obama. Either way, it goes to the Convention.

The only thing Michigan and Florida have in common is that their primaries were scheduled early against the rules, and therefore candidates were barred from campaigning in either one. The contests are not comparable, however, because Michigan allowed several candidates to remove their names from the ballot (those candidates being led to believe that the DNC required them to do so), while in Florida the names of the candidates were placed on the ballot by the state party, so that all candidates were represented. The lack of campaigning did not prevent voters in either state from being well informed enough to decide which candidate to support, but the lack of several candidates on the Michigan ballot made that primary presumptively invalid--they need to have a revote, and since Democrats have some control of that state's government, that should be possible (as it is not presently possible in Forida, where Dems control neither the Executive nor Legislative branch.

Split the delegations 50/50?

Good idea. But let's also split Illinois 50/50. You wouldn't mind, would you?

Before I comment on your option for resolution, I just want to ask for clarification on one point.  You state:  "I believe that all of these options are flawed.  Obviously the delegations cannot be seated as is because it rewards the states for breaking the rules. This sets a bad precedent for future primaries.  And it rewards Hillary for going back on her pledge.  This is definitely not fair."

I'm sorry, but exactly what pledge did Hillary go back on?  

As I understand it, all names were originally on MI's ballot, although only four remained on the final ballot (Hillary and three others)--the DNC did not force or even ask candidates to take their name off the ballot.  Yet three candidates (including Barack) made a calculated move to take their names off the ballot, and then campaigned to have their supports vote for "uncommitted."  No going back on her word there.

In FL, it was not Hillary who had commercials airing in Florida before their primary--that was Barack.  All she did was fly in after the voting was over for a (victory) speech...because yes, the vote did still show tremendous support for her.    

So I'll ask again, what pledge did Hillary go back on?

But in answering your question, in order of their appeal FROM WORST TO BEST:

2) I agree that giving a 50/50 representation is not good and would be EVEN WORSE than doing nothing at all.  Not only does this not heed the voice of the voters, it gives false representation and actually gives Barack a benefit not rightfully earned.  

3) As you note about leaving the situation stand as is, absolutely untenable because it punishes and disenfranchises roughly 2.5 million voters who did go vote in good faith and who had absolutely no doing in moving the primary dates.  (I'll add this is also a great risk to turning these states red in November.)

1) Although I personally feel leaving the votes stand as is would be fair and most appropriate--it was representative of the people who did take time to go vote after all--I realize that Barack's supporters would feel this gave an unfair advantage to Hillary and therefore would lead to disruption within the Democratic Party. (And only if the original votes were allowed to stand would I then support doing a proportional split of the "uncommitted" votes to the three candidates represented by that category, thereby giving Barack 33 1/3% of the 40% uncommitted voters.)

4) Considering all the above, I feel the only viable solution that will both give voters a true voice and keep all Democrats as happy as possible in feeling there was a fair election, thereby garnering as much support for our Democratic candidate come November, is to allow a revote.  (Although this is also problematic, because let's look at Edwards for example. He earned 14% of FL voters' votes originally. He would presumably not be on a new ballot--so this changes the dynamic of the vote entirely.) But that being said, I do feel that some actions need taken to resolve the overall situation leading to this problem.  And another poster had suggested within another diary where we were tackling this issue that idea of taking the votes away from superdelegates for those two states.  I'd agree with taking them away from those who hold that status and were part of moving the state's dates.  However, I'd then also promptly boot Dean and any officers at the National Level who allowed this fiasco to even happen, with new officers giving serious thought to how we even hold our overall primaries in the future and to how future penalties might be doled out.

But I'd suggest a 5th option as well.  It seems I read that the DNC gives money to states under some arrangement.  Since money is always such a key issue, perhaps they should consider witholding funds from state parties that do not abide by the national arrangements...that would be far better than taking away voters rights.

Okay, that's my 2 cents.

does no one go with MY idea!? It is a combination of some of the above.

Here I go once again.

My idea for FL and MI is pretty simple.
...
For Florida:

Split the original number of delegates in half from 210 to 105 and then give them out proportionally to the vote.

...
For Michigan:

Split the original number of delegates in half from 156 to 78 and then give them out proportionally to the vote but give Obama the "uncommitted" portion of the vote.