How to solve the Michigan and Florida delegate problem

I agree with Kos that the delegates should be seated in some way that does not use the bizarre "non-election" results.  However, just splitting them 50-50 doesn't seem right either.

Here's what I propose ...

Use the delegate counts in the neighboring states to decide proportional allotment of delegates.

This could be done in one of two ways ... see below.

How to apportion delegates in FL or MI?

Option 1: Take the winners of neighboring states (by land borders, so as not to get ridiculous with Michigan), based on delegate count.  So, right now, Florida would be 50-50 ... because Clinton leads in delegates in Alabama and Obama leads in delegates in Georgia.  Michigan would depend on who wins WI, OH, and IN.  It could be 100-0 or 66-33, depending on who gets the most delegates.  Note that this includes superdelegates, who could then be lobbied to switch (which could flip Alabama, and thus, Florida).

Option 2: Look at the pool of delegates in neighboring states (again, by land borders), and apportion MI and FL delegates based on the proportion of delegates and superdelegates that each campaign has in those neighboring states in June.  This would currently give Obama the bulk of Florida delegates, but not by a ton.  It would also be fluid, based on the decisions of superdelegates in AL and GA.  MI would also be more evenly split, in all likelihood, and it would heighten the importance of IN and OH and WI.  Obviously, the campaigns would have to agree with the states in question and the DNC pretty soon, or it looks like ex post facto gerrymandering.

If you like these, forward it to Howard Dean.