Would allow the Dems time to poll test for the best challengers and broaden the field they have to choose from.

When hardly half the delegates and alternates show up at conventions now, we would ask them to attend two.  And in this tough economy force them to pay twice.

Would cost the party additional money to hold two conventions, money we don't have.

Say they will raise more money, gonna need it because Stryker has all he needs.

Not having the saddle all of those towns and cities for the costs of running an election is a huge money saver for those governments.

1. Disenfranchises New delegates.
   
2. Makes SOS and AG candidates the whipping post for Mark Brewer all summer.
   
3. Makes the convention pointless in Aug.
   
4. It was rejected by the policy committee.  

First of all, how can you disenfranchise delegates who haven't been elected yet?  

Plus, we're not talking precinct delegates.  Convention delegates are the ones making the decision.  They are elected at County conventions.  I am almost ALWAYS a State Convention delegate but I have NEVER been a precinct delegate (there's been another great PD in my neighborhood my whole life).  

Everyone who would like to be elected as a convention delegate to select the SoS / AG STILL have that opportunity.  It'd just come earlier.  

And the Stryker argument is INSANE!

Your argument is that Stryker is richer than sin and can wreak havoc on our candidates if we give him the extra time.

If Stryker is richer than sin... and he is... and if he's willing to shell out bajillions of dollars to buy race after race after race across the state... and he is... then he's going to be spending that cash on our entire field.  Not like it's going to break his bank.

How does this limit the ability for someone to make cash out of running a convention campaign?  After all it is still a convention campaign.  They are going to make money no matter what.  And what is wrong with that?  People make money running primary and general election campaigns why shouldn't they make money running convention campaigns, after all we are not communists.  And guess what there is going to be a fight the only thing is does it happen in May or August.  

The other question is does it comply with state election law, which it does not.  How about Mark Brewer filing a lawsuit trying to throw our candidates off the ballot and forcing them or the party to spend money to fight it in court.  

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

That isn't a Stryker thing.  That's a Mark Brewer thing.  The guy is a lawyer by trade (he initially made his name representing the Ku Klux Klan) and rarely misses the opportunity to sue the pants off a political opponent.  The fear of a lawsuit itself isn't enough to dissuade me.  That said, it's best to cross our I's and dot our T's, so to speak.

Michigan election law states that a Party's nominees cannot be nominated until after the August Primary but leaves completely open to the Party the means by which their nominees are selected.  

I tracked down a copy of the proposed two-fer rules and this is how the language deals with existing statute...

MRP would not technically be nominating the SoS and AG candidates at the early convention.  The early convention would only determine which candidates were eligible for nomination at the August convention where they would actually be nominated.  So, the only candidates eligible for nomination in August are those candidates who received the highest number of votes for SoS / AG respectively at the late-March convention.

In other words, the early convention would make someone the "candidate eligible for nomination."

I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to know the ins and outs of how something like this would be perceived and handled by the courts should a challenge arise and should they even bother to hear it (though I have serious doubts that any court would disenfranchise voters across the state by eliminating a major Party candidate from the ballot when that candidate's nomination was done according to the letter of the law).

It is less expensive to the taxpayers and prevents shanahanigans from Dem voters en masse.

I'd argue, McCarthy, that it is entirely possible to like the convention process but to be intrigued by the possibility of moving it earlier in the cycle to enhance fundraising opportunities, too.

The concensus among the attendees was that this is a bad idea.

The state party would effectively give a "nod" to particular candidates in May.  That would give the Dems several extra months to focus their targets on that presumed nominee.  Several extra months to fabricate lots of opposition research.

And how fair is this to the other candidates in the race?  No, the party's "favorite" in May wasn't actually nominated and the other candidates should either drop out or hang on until August?

And then there's all the added expense of holding two conventions - not just for the party but, more importantly, for the attendees.  You've just doubled their expenses to participate in the process.

This is not a good plan and it has no "upside."

DCuz
www.RightCuz.com

For example, in Michigan you have a lot of small businesses (even after 7 years of Granholm's purges). Many of them try to incorporate, but in all reality, they are really run as one man shows. That is, a corporation has to have a board of directors with real decision making power that meets regularly. Oftentimes, Joe Blow will incorporate a business and make his wife, kids, and the dog members of the board. So when the business defaults, and the creditors come calling, Joe can't absolve himself of personal liabilty if his business was not truly functioning like a corporation as opposed to a one man show.  

This "eligible" concept walks, talks, and quacks like a nomination. And depending on who has a beef with state party, yes I think they could sue and argue that the concept violates state law. If only one person per office is made "eligible" in May, they are for all intents and purposes being nominated in May as opposed to August.