Anthony Wing Kosner has this Forbes column, arguing that a relatively new concept in physics, the Constructal Law, predicts that the U.S. habit of forcing all electoral activity into just two dominant political parties is not sustainable. The Constructal Law is explained in a 2012 book by Adrian Bejan and J. Peder Zane, “Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization.”

Kosner is a design specialist. His column ought not to concede that the U.S. has always had a two-party system (although “two-party system” has many meanings, and people who use it ought to define it whenever they use it). In the 1850’s the United States had four major parties, and in the 1890’s it had three major parties. Also Wisconsin, in the period 1934-1944, had three major parties; and Minnesota in the period 1922-1942 also had three major parties.

The title of Kosner’s piece is “Duper Tuesday: Romney and Santorum Show we Already Have Three Parties (or More).”

This lengthy story, toward the bottom, reveals that a new poll shows Texas voters now say they would rather have an independent, non-partisan redistricting commission, than the current system in which the legislature draws districts for state legislative and U.S. House seats. The story also explains all the problems that still exist with the May 29 primary for 2012.

On March 7, attorneys for the Oklahoma State Election Board filed this brief in Libertarian Party of Oklahoma v Ziriax, western district, 5:12-cv-119.
This case already has had a status conference, and the judge had urged both sides to settle the case, which challenges the March 1 petition deadline for new party petitions. The Libertarian Party had then suggested either a 30% cut in the required number of signatures (to compensate for the fact that the 2011 bill, moving the deadline from May 1 to March 1, deprived petitioning parties of two months of prime petitioning time, the months of March and April), or extending the deadline this year to May 1.

The state rejected this attempt to settle and did not make a counter settlement suggestion. Instead the state’s brief argues that the existing law is constitutional. It also suggests that perhaps the Libertarian Party petition submitted on February 29 might possibly have enough valid signatures, and therefore the lawsuit, as to the Libertarian Party, is moot. The state’s brief ignores the party’s offer to nominate by convention, thus saving the state the expense of printing up Libertarian Party primary ballots, and eliminating the need for such an early petition deadline.