Weighing in on injustices that plague third-party politics

True or false? Our government is "a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people." This is Webster's definition of "democracy," and when one thinks of democracy the first country that comes to mind is the United States. But are we really living up to this title?

Barack Obama has been elected to be the next president of the United States. Though this may come as good news to some, let us not forget all of the other candidates that didn't get a fair shot, and the ills that still plague the current political platform.

Candidate image was a large part of this past election. However, candidate image is largely used in current politics as a mechanism for control. The current political platforms limit voter options and perceptions giving some candidates an unfair advantage. The malleability of candidate image misleads voters into believing that who a candidate is as a person is more important than the ideals he or she stands for.

Skirting around the issues is becoming more common in major political elections. Bipartisan candidates are more likely to sell their popularity and reputation than to actually talk about what issues matter to the public.

Incomplete or sparse delivery from television, radio, and mainstream newspapers in the past election worked to mask and confuse the position of each candidate, and fueled a possible damaged view of the candidates as they went up for election. Even cautious voters were forced to sift through seas of misleading statements, irrelevant topics, and candidate battles to get to the heart of what really matters when voting: issues of debate.

The debates lent some insight into each bipartisan candidate's position, yet presented little evidence for real change. The reason? In each major debate the candidates focused just as much on attacking each other's reputation as they did on generalizing the issues. Time that wasn't spent on useless bickering was often spent on presenting generalized salesman-like statements that had little to no value to voters deciding whom he or she would prefer as president. As a result, many of the candidates' plans relating to major issues of today's politics were never brought to full light.

Barriers to full participation of candidates exist. Ballot laws in some states prevent independent candidates from appearing on the ballot or limit their options as a write-in candidate. Some states require candidates to file with the state as a write-in candidate. Other states require that candidates win a primary election if they are to run in the general election.

A few states simply do not allow write-in candidates to run for president. This means that independent candidates can never have a fair chance in competing against bipartisan candidates as the current system stands. Some states that currently hold tight restrictions in regards to write-ins include Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada and Oklahoma.

The financial pollution of politics is a large factor. When political muscle is not only set by constituent support, but financial backing, candidate image and strategic alliances can be bought, giving bipartisan money giants a clear and distinct advantage over others. Most voters don't even realize that there are around five presidential candidates listed in addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates across most state ballots. Simply because there is no great media hype surrounding these candidates, they are often lost from view and not considered at all.

Independent candidates are not allowed to participate alongside bipartisan candidates in traditional debates unless they have at least 15 percent of total voters supporting them. Because independent candidates often have less exposure than this amount before taking the stage, they are seldom given the chance to get the exposure rating they need. Higher exposure can be used to gather more campaign funds.

Bipartisan candidates are predisposed to exposure, and have little to no problem securing funds because of this high exposure. Since independent candidates can only get exposure with money, and most independents have little personal resources to contribute and low current exposure with which to gather resources, they remain hidden from view of the general public. This sort of disproportionate allocation of debate opportunities and media exposure is counter to the principles of equality and democracy that our country so proudly holds dear.

In the past, this highly representative form of democracy may have worked, but now we are a nation in excess of 300 million people. A total of two highly visible candidates simply will not cut it anymore.

The suggestion that 300 million people fully support either bipartisan candidate is absurd. We need a broader base of visible candidates so that voters have options that more closely represent what they may be looking for in a president. The election process needs to be corrected so that multiple candidates per party can run for president, or so that independent and non-bipartisan parties can be given a fighting chance at getting greater exposure to the people.

The bipartisan candidates of recent years have stopped catering towards the needs of the common citizen and have turned instead to using a corrupt political system and a misleading media base to gain an advantage over one other person...in this case, John McCain.