There has been much discussion about whether Florida and Michigan’s results in the Dem. primary should be counted or not, and how they should be counted. Whether the rules were applied inconsistently. Whether there should be a revote. How that revote should be conducted.

Here are the facts as I see them:

If you believe that the rules were applied inconsistently to Florida and Michigan, then you may try to argue for inclusion of their results. If you have any interest at all in a Democrat being elected, that would be suicidal to your self interest.

First scenario: Let’s say that under some far out circumstance, the Florida and Michigan results were counted as they are and Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. Her candidacy would not only be viewed as illegitimate by her opposition and the rest of the world, but by a significant constituency in her own party.

Second scenario: Michigan and Florida’s results are discarded entirely, and Obama narrowly wins the delegate count. The political theorists’ wet dream happens: a brokered convention. Regardless of who is appointed the nominee, a significant constituency again will view the candidacy as illegitimate. Perhaps less so than in the first scenario, but significant nonetheless. It will be far worse if the candidate who lost the delegate count or popular vote is the appointee.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was never viewed as legitimate by his opposition because he never won a majority of the vote (remember Ross Perot?).

George W. Bush’s presidency was never viewed as legitimate by his opposition because of the questionable results in Florida and his subsequent appointment to office by the Supreme Court.

Under either scenario outline above, if the Democratic nominee somehow manages to win the election amidst ear-splitting acrimony from within his or her own party, we would have a third president in a row whose election is viewed as illegitimate.

I doubt Howard Dean’s competence at his job at this point, but I also doubt that even he is dumb enough to allow either of those scenarios to happen. Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I view new elections in Florida and Michigan as inevitable. It’s only a question of how, when and who will pay for them.

Mail-in votes like Florida is suggesting would run into the same legitimacy problems that the two scenarios I outlined above would encounter. A pair of full do-overs are the only scenario that can possibly solve this.

The problem is cost. Florida’s would run about $30 $20 million ($10 million in Michigan for a total of $30 million). Who’s going to have to pony up for them?

Or, is Howard Dean really dumb enough to allow this to be settled any other way?

Update 11:38 a.m. Ugg, Howard Dean suggests mail-in ballots.