[Pluto]

Yes, the IAU ruling on the whole thing was flawed. It seemed everyone was aghast that with the discovery of Eris and its diameter larger than Pluto the solar system would have to go from nine planets to ten. I saw no problem with that. Incredibly, the discoverer of Eris Mike Brown seemed to have a big issue with it and was fine with the reclassification; in effect talking himself out of being remembered as the discoverer of the tenth planet of the solar system.

One of the biggest flaws in the classification of being a planet is having cleared your orbit of 'debris'. Well, no planet has accomplished that as all are pelted with varying degrees of meteors every minute. If you go larger in scale than just mere meteors, then the larger planets would be in danger of being demoted as they have several large asteroids(captured comets maybe?) in their own lagrange points at L4 and L5 that will probably be there following or preceding the planet for all eternity.

I think a better ruling than what the IAU came up with would have been some hard numbers, like setting the diameter of the body at 1000km. Anything greater than that and not undergoing some kind of fusion process(a star) would be considered a planet. Anything under that diameter would be considered an asteroid. Using those guidelines, Ceres would have remained an asteroid and Eris would have become planet #10. Kids would have been filled with wonder at a growing solar system; while old timers could reminisce about how when they were young there was only nine planets.

And Wids, there are no asteroids that have a greater mass than Pluto. Even Ceres before it got upgraded to a dwarf planet still fell short. Eris is not an asteroid as it's a Kuiper Belt object. Granted, the Kuiper Belt has a lot in common with the asteroid belt as it's a debris field at the edge of our solar system but still.