The best thing that could come of new Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan is the message that Americans need not accept illegitimate or inconclusive elections. That was once an accepted principle in America: when irregularities plagued New York congressional primaries in the 1960s and ‘70s, they were redone; when recounts failed to settle the 1974 New Hampshire U.S. Senate race, another vote was held.

Sometimes elections don’t work. When this happens, democratic values and common sense demand a new vote. That was the right response when butterfly ballots and hanging chads denied thousands of Floridians a chance to have their votes count in the 2000 presidential race. Similarly, in 2006, after dysfunctional machinery in Florida’s 13th District appeared to disenfranchise thousands, there were calls for a revote. The proposals never gained traction, either because party insiders thought they could find a fix among existing ballots or because they were unwilling to hold another election. Democrats can’t afford to make the same mistake this year.

For years, national party leaders ignored complaints from Michigan officials about the stranglehold the small, very white and mostly rural states of Iowa and New Hampshire maintained on the nominating process of a party that relies on people of color and urban voters in big states to win elections.

When elections don’t work, democratic values and common sense demand a new vote.

But when Michigan and Florida leapt ahead of the Democratic National Committee’s schedule, they disregarded DNC moves to diversify the process by sanctioning early contests in Nevada, with its substantial Hispanic population, and South Carolina, where African-Americans are major players.

Then-front-runner Hillary Clinton gamed the system, leaving her name on Michigan’s Jan. 15 ballot after other candidates withdrew, and by traveling to Florida for campaign-related events on the eve of a Jan. 29 primary in a state where contenders had pledged to avoid campaigning. Everyone knew that if Clinton secured the necessary votes to be nominated, she would order the convention to seat delegations assembled to reflect the Michigan and Florida results. Conversely, if Barack Obama established clear dominance, he would force a compromise. But now it looks as if neither campaign will be able to prevail in credential fights at this summer’s convention.

An unexpectedly competitive campaign, which could be decided by a handful of votes on the convention floor, makes the question of how to seat 367 Florida and Michigan delegates potentially definitional. The answer could determine not just the identity of the nominee but party prospects in the November race against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Democrats find themselves in an untenable circumstance: if Clinton’s camp and superdelegate allies seat delegations “won” by her in illegitimate primaries, Obama would be denied a nomination that could have been his for playing by the rules. Clinton cannot credibly contend in November if she is seen as having manipulated the process to defeat a more popular candidate. Conversely, if the delegations are denied seating, millions of voters in key states will be disenfranchised.

Neither scenario is a winning one for Democrats. Nor is the clumsy “fix” of selecting delegates with caucuses. And be cautious about mail-vote proposals to choose delegations on the cheap; as Florida Congressman Bob Wexler says, experimenting could be an “unmitigated disaster” in a state that has never before held a mail vote. Florida and Michigan should hold real primaries.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean must work with Michigan and Florida officials on new primaries. He must prod the Clinton and Obama campaigns to recognize new primaries are needed.

JOHN NICHOLS IS WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE.