Love ya Billybob, but I am not sure why this should get one worked up. If Hillary has the plurality before FL and MI are added, why is it a shame that she gets the majority after they are added? Seems like she's ahead in each case.
(What would happen if FL and MI were never tossed, but each went to, say, Edwards? Hillary still has the plurality, right? Wouldn't she still win the convention? Or do the DEMs drop the bottom feeders and re-vote for the top two? Sincere question here.)
To award the delegates to Hillary, after she pledged not to take part in the contest, is helping her cheat on the delegate count. Michigan is the clearest case, because Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, whereas, Hillary left hers on. (Whether a candidate CAN take his/her name off a state ballot, varies with state law. Obviously it could be done in Michigan.)
As for winning the nomination, both Parties require an absolute majority, not a plurality, of the authorized delegates, for nomination. Both Parties also drop the lowest tally candidate after each round of voting.
So, looking at the Democrats, Edwards would retain his delegates on round one (and also Richards, etc., who have any). When any candidate is dropped off the bottom of the list, his/her delegates are then freed to vote for others as they choose, or are directed by their former candidate.
At this point, a plurality would usually turn into a majority for the leading candidate. However, if a block of delegates decided to "take a walk" and not vote -- for bargaining chip reasons, dislike of another candidate, whatever -- there would be no majority and the voting would continue.
Exactly the same logic about the process applies to the Republican convention. There's a lot of bad blood out there in both parties, and, "It is going to get worse. Mark my words." (Quoting Fred Thompson in "The Hunt for Red October.")
Good questions you raised.
John / Billybob