Four candidates with no voice

For election day our school did all sorts of activities that included a mock election. In preparing for the election we printed up our own ballots based on the real thing. I was surprised to note that there were SIX (6) candidates for President on our NM ballot. Now I was trained as a social studies teacher. I know there are parties beyond the Republicans and Democrats. The name Ralph Nader is no curiosity, nor is Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr. However, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party was a surprise.

There is a lot I don't know. There's also a lot I don't care to know. Who is running for President and what do they stand for are things I am interested in. The great discussion is far more fruitful when all the voices are heard. With all the cash raised and spent in this campaign, what are the options of the minority parties (Green, Constitution, Independent, and Libertarian)?

The Presidential debates are a significant source of information for the voters. They give the candidates voice with many citizens that they would not otherwise have. Are the minority parties really so inconsequential that they have nothing to offer to the debate? How much more could a debate really cost to include all the candidates instead of just the two majors? Even with the minimal increase in cost, the benefits far outweigh the expense. Would we have been distracted by a third party candidate, or is it possible that we would have found a clearer, truer voice for issues that resonate with us?

When some are restricted from the process, we all lose. The system can handle it. The voters can handle it. The third party candidates certainly wouldn't mind. Giving voice to those committed to the process and the nation is worth the "risk".