So I am a little surprised to be the one posting this, as it is not my area of specialty, and especially since YPP is usually such a hot bed of discussion for alternate voting systems, but how about that idea for re-doing the Florida and possibly the Michigan primary as a vote by mail process?

Because MI and FL moved up their primaries against the wishes of the DNC, they had had their delegates stripped - which was at the time plainly unfair to the voters of those states and in the current situation a disaster waiting to happen. Because of the unexpected closeness of the Presidential race, the prospect of a fight over seating delegates the DNC had sought to bar would seem to be in the best interest of party to avoid at all costs unless you are looking forwrd to 8 years of President McCain.

The solution being discussed by party chair Howard Dean: vote by mail with the costs being picked up by the state Democratic Party - rather than state tax payers or the national party. For Florida the estimated costs for the mail in primary would be $6 million.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean said a mail-in primary is "actually a very good process."

"Every voter gets a ballot in the mail," the former Vermont governor said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It's comprehensive, you get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home. It's not a bad way to do this."

As for who pays, Dean said, "That is a problem," reiterating that the party needs its money for the general election campaign against Republican John McCain.

He also ruled out the state of Florida, where Republican Gov. Charlie Crist has nixed the idea. Dean suggested the state Democratic party might foot the bill. Florida's political parties, unlike the DNC, can accept unlimited contributions.

So thoughts?

I think both to avoid a sense of disenfranchisement by voters in these two states and for unity after whatever kind of convention battle happens anyway, the idea of re-do is a good one. It seems like it would be chance to focus a lot of media attention on the merits of voting by mail and ultimately neither side ends up feeling they were cheated by flaws in the primary process.

Also lets try avoid a "which candidate is it better for" strategical analysis but more focus on whats fairest for voters in these two states, who should pay for it, how it should be implemented, etc. Regardless of who we want to ultimate win, it seems there are issues about the merits of various approaches to solving the problem that are candidate-neutral. Thats the kind of discussion I'm most interested in hearing people's thoughts on.