From Jason Pye comes tidings that a Republican state senator is sponsoring a bill making it easier for third parties to be viable in Georgia. Right now, getting a third party candidate on the ballot (for a non-statewide race) is a bit of an undertaking, requiring a lot of signature gathering. More importantly, if you're a third party organization, you've got to do the same signature gathering each and every year.

I'll quote Jason Pye:

...in order to get on the ballot a candidate must turn in petitions equaling 5 percent of the registered voters from the district he plans to run in. If a candidate plans to run statewide, he must get signatures from 1 percent of registered voters in the state.

So, it's a little bit of a burden. And, you can argue that it shouldn't be. More and more Americans are turning away from the traditional party labels. People want alternatives. They want options. That's what Shafer's bill appears to do:

SB 359 would give political bodies, such as the Libertarian Party, a ballot line for statewide and down ticket races (local and legislative) provided it they can maintain the 1 percent of registered voters requirement for statewide races.

The two-party system is something of a dinosaur, a holdover from the days when party bosses made the decisions and expected the voters to follow their leads. Things are different these days; we're more engaged, and exposed to more (and more readily available) information than ever before.

Now, putting on my hyperpartisan hat for a second, I don't trust the source. David Shafer is one of the more reactionary Republicans out there, and that's why I'm only cautiously supportive. On the face, however, this isn't a terrible bill.

This is, to put it in economic terms, electoral free markets - removing some of the barriers to entry and competition for smaller entities. Competition is good; it's going to keep the traditional two parties on their toes. It'll also make elections a lot more fun to watch.

One thing Jason forgot to mention, although I'll go out on a limb and say he probably agrees with me. If we're going to do this, we also need to dump the runoff law that requires a runoff election if no candidate receives at least 50% plus one. That's a fairly new law; it was part of the law that moved our Presidential primary to February 5. The old threshold, and the one to which we should return, is 45%. If we pass this and don't rescind the other, get ready for extra innings in just about every significant election.

UPDATED at 5:45pm: My limb done broke off. Jason says I made a '"fair assumption," but makes a good argument for keeping the 50% threshold in, so give it a read. I still disagree, but I can see his point. -msm]

Chances are, I'm still going vote straight D, even if this passes. But, like a lot of voters, I wouldn't mind seeing some more options as well.

[Photo credit here]