Mike at Okiedoke inadvertently precipitated a brouhaha with this observation:
Dart: To Frosty Troy of The Oklahoma Observer for his support of Oklahoma voters having only two parties on the ballot. Frosty says a third candidate might screw up a close race between a Democrat and a Republican. Yeah, that would be terrible. And imagine what might happen if neither a Democrat or Republican was elected; I like to.
Tater, unfortunately, damages his case by raising the spectre of “fusion,” the process by which candidates in some states can run on multiple party tickets, and quotes Dan Cantor at TPM Cafe, who sees it as a useful tool for Democrats, which indeed it could be. However, inasmuch as nowhere in the Oklahoma petition is there any reference to fusion or any language which would expedite it, Tater is showing us, you should pardon the expression, a red herring.
And just for historical perspective: the Republicans were originally a third party, ascending to the Big Two in the wake of the dissolution of the Whigs. (If they play their cards right, they could be just as dead as the Whigs.)
In the meantime, I will continue to believe that we’d be better off if we had actual Greens and Libertarians and such on the state ballot, and if they “screw up a close race” — well, isn’t that just too damn bad? No party, major, minor or minuscule, has any business thinking it’s entitled to an office.