3RD (and 4th) PARTY DEBATE?

After watching the gubernatorial debate the other night, I've come to a couple of conclusions: First, Christy Mihos never ceases to impress me. And second, third party candidates absolutely belong in gubernatorial and presidential debates.

If there's only one thing that most Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that third party candidates are pesky little nuisances that spoil the show for the 'real' candidates. Historically, third party candidates have ruffled a few feathers by bringing up the topics that the 'serious' candidates agreed to avoid. Ross Perot was a thorn in George H. Bush's side in the 1992 presidential election and even stole a good chunk of votes from him at the end of the day. The same happened to Al Gore and John Kerry, both losing votes to Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

There have been many attempts in eliminating the third party over the years. After Ross Perot landed 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election, democrats and republicans agreed upon a ballot access reform where a candidate had to receive a certain percentage (much higher than Perot's 1992 massivereturn) to participate in debates or even appear on some ballots. Why do you think that neither democrats or republicans are complaining about non-mandatory ID voting process or electronic voting? Because both parties can benefit from those flawed systems. Neither party wants voting reform unless it equally hurts both of them. Enter the third party candidate.

Third party candidates rarely have a chance in winning an election, unless he/she is a migrant politician (Teddy Roosevelt, Joe Leiberman). They serve, instead, as moderators to the 'serious' candidates. They make sure no one gets away with anything and often bring to attention the elephant in the room. Christy Mihos has been doing just that so far for front runners Deval Patrick and Kerry Healey. Keep'em honest.