Even for Illinois, the paragon of political peculiarity, this one is weird.

It is virtually certain that the state's voters will elect two people to the same U.S. Senate seat in the Nov. 2 election. The winners could be the same person, or candidates from different parties or even different candidates from the same party.

As required by a recent federal court decision, one will serve just until Jan. 3. The other will serve from Jan. 3 to early 2017.

As crazy as this sounds, it could have been much worse. Lawyers and the judge in the middle of this mess appear to be forging a path that would spare taxpayers the cost of holding a special election, or two, at upwards of $20 million each.

And despite a natural inclination to blame former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on general principle, it's not really his fault.

The roots reach back two years, to the election of Sen. Barack Obama as president. The right to fill the Senate vacancy fell to Blagojevich, who would later be accused in federal court of trying to sell it for a bribe. He denies it, and the jury on that is out — literally.

Just before the tainted Blagojevich was impeached and tossed from office in early 2009, he even considering naming himself to the Senate, according to FBI surveillance recordings. Instead, the governor picked Roland Burris, a former state attorney general who reinforced his lightweight political reputation with a fawning acceptance of the appointment that other Democrats felt was too tainted to touch.

Sated by the title and perhaps aware of his scant chance of election, Burris did not file for a full term in the Feb. 2, 2010, primary. Democrats nominated state Comptroller Alexi Giannoulias that day, and Republicans chose U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk. So far, so good.

Lurking in the background was an activist lawsuit insisting that the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while allowing a temporarily appointed senator, demands a special election eventually. The state fought the suit, as I presume Gov. Pat Quinn was not eager to set up the potential for $40 million worth of special primary and general elections.

A federal judge ruled that the 17th Amendment does indeed require an election, and an appellate court recently affirmed it.

Both sides now seem to agree on holding the special vote along with the regular election on Nov. 2, presumably adding only the cost of extra ink on the ballot. Details were still being worked out this week, but everyone also seems to lean toward letting the parties' leaders name their nominees, with independents accessing the ballot by gathering 25,000 signatures.

The law is the law, but this is still folly. Although the term would be for two months, the temporary senator might not even get seated for a couple of weeks. Presumably, the chamber will be in recess through the holiday period, until new members are sworn in Jan. 3.

Burris could have handled that extra month or two, and predictably is talking about seeking the nomination to do just that. But the Democratic Party surely won't support it. Although there is no incumbency advantage in winning the short term, an early inauguration would provide a winner of both elections with extra seniority, something that's big currency in the Senate.

Much more significant is a potential impact on the strict per-election limits applied to financial contributions to candidates for a federal office. Would Kirk and Giannoulias, if running for two elections simultaneously, be eligible to accept double contributions from donors? At least some pundits feel pretty certain about it.

Given the way those two are already bashing each other (for example, Giannoulias on discrepancies in Kirk's military record, and Kirk on claims that Giannoulias helped finance gangsters with his failed family bank), I'm wincing at how many more TV commercials that extra cash could buy.

Now, you didn't hear it from me, but consider this bizarre scenario: Blagojevich is acquitted by a jury in time to pass petitions, get on the special ballot and win a month or two in the very Senate seat that was at the heart of his legal troubles in the first place. Fantasy? Of course it is. But then, is anything really too fantastic to happen in Illinois politics?