Yesterday, I discussed the DNC's decision to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 presidential convention. I suggested that one of the reasons the DNC chose to do this was that it needs to mount a credible threat against states. Doing much less than what the DNC did would not have amounted to a punishment for Florida, and therefore a weak signal to other states.

But, one can't help but ask: is this indeed a credible threat? There are reasons to think not. Namely, what happens when Florida sends its delegates to the convention in 12 months, and those delegates demand to be included? What happens when the roll call of delegates votes is being conducted, and Florida is unceremoniously skipped, as though it does not exist? The DNC will look bad - possibly bad enough to change its mind.

The main property of a credible threat is that the person who is threatened must believe that the threatener will actually follow through. There are reasons to think that the DNC will not follow through. Namely, its reputation will be harmed just three or so months before the presidential election.

So, can it actually make good on the threat?

There are reasons that it should. Suppose that the DNC gives in to Florida next year. What happens in 2012 when it threatens states with punitive measures if they violate committee rules? Will states listen? Absolutely not. After all, states will have learned from the Florida fiasco that the DNC does not follow through on its threats, which are therefore not credible. Holding the line through 2008 means not having to hold it in 2012.

However, I wonder if this logic would be very compelling to an organization like the DNC. First, the time horizons of its leaders tend to be narrower than the leaders of other organizations. There will, at least in theory, be a new DNC chairman in 2009. And the 2012 convention will be his problem, not the current leadership's problem. Second, the goal of the national committee is to get a Democratic president elected, not to create an orderly and sustainable primary process. If it thought that excluding Florida would diminish its chances of accomplishing that goal, it would include Florida faster than you can say "flip flop."

Ultimately, I do not know whether the DNC will follow through or not. Fortunately for Democrats nationwide, Howard Dean is the chairman of the organization. Dean has an interest in building the party for the future, so if anybody can resist the temptation of the short run for the sake of long run viability, it is he. Unfortunately, Dean is not known to have a deft political touch - so he seems to have made the right choice, albeit clumsily.

And make no mistake - the DNC made the right choice in terms of its long-term interests. Allowing Florida to cheat this year will create primary chaos in 2012. This cycle is not crazy. It is just early and compressed. Crazy is when states move forward, and forward, and forward in a continual cycle where everybody tries to get to the front of the line. Meanwhile, this perpetual forward motion diminishes the benefit that all parties - states and candidates - derive from the primary. In other words, the issue of states scheduling their primaries is a major collective action dilemma that only the national party has the interest in preventing and the power to prevent. That is what is sitting in the background here. A good way to look at the interests of the states in relation the DNC and presidential candidates is to imagine water that wants to run downhill, but is prevented from doing so by a dam, which stops it from flooding the nearby village.

This is why it was entertaining for me to read columnists taking Florida's side while claiming the moral high-ground. Puh-lease. What silly, puffed-up Sunshine State boosterism. "Florida's important." Important enough to cut to the front of the line? Give me a break! Florida is cheating on the rules - and its decision to cheat could have had major collective consequences for all primary voters, not to mention candidates, unless the DNC stepped in. So, why blame the DNC? Did you ever blame your third grade teacher when he stepped in to discipline that annoying, unruly kid who always disrupted class?