Was Harold Ickes right?

Today the Democrats finally settled the Florida and Michigan disaster. I’m of two minds over the final result. On the one hand I feel like the decision to cut every delegate’s vote in is a good compromise.

On the other hand I have something of a bad taste in my mouth about divying up the Michigan delegate 69/59 as the Michigan democratic party proposed. On the one hand I don’t think there could be an example of a more meaningless primary than the one held in Michigan, on the other hand I somewhat agree with the following sentiment from Kagro X at Daily Kos:

So Harold Ickes is right. This was a violation of the bedrock principle that a vote has to be counted as what it was, not what we wish, guess, or hope it was.

I would have been much more happy if Michigan had been able to hold a Caucus or even a State Convention to decide on the delegate split. Either way the impact on the race would have been negligible. Even if all 59, actually 29.5, delegates went for Clinton it wouldn’t make a significant difference in the race. Which begs the question: why not leave them uncommited?