It is a great travesty that we live in a country where the ballot and the debate is not truly democratic. Given the actions of the Democratic Party — which has tried to limit ballot access for third-party presidential candidates — and the actions of the Republican Party — which is trying to use third-party presidential candidates as leverage to propel its candidate to the top — the election has come to reflect a game rather than values and issues.

Thursday evening, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) squared off in "parallel interviews," otherwise known as a presidential debate. The core issues of the first debate focused on what to do with the Iraq quagmire, foreign policy especially with regard to pre-emptive strike and national security threats. While Kerry made great strides and clearly defeated the Republican incumbent, in many ways they seemed more alike then different.

Both men acknowledged they are going to win the war in Iraq. Kerry's plan involves gaining international support, training Iraqi military forces, carrying out a reconstruction plan and making sure elections are held next year. Bush claims to have international support — including Great Britain, Australia and Poland — and that he has trained over 100,000 Iraqis for military duty (25,000 more will be trained by the end of the year). He also wants to make sure elections are held next year and continue his reconstruction plan.

With regard to the Darfur region of Sudan, both men share the same opinion. Both men believe the United States should work through United Nations and African Union sanctions to curb the genocide that is taking place. Both Bush and Kerry also came to agree on the idea that nuclear proliferation is the gravest threat to American security.

Clearly, the parties still reflect one another. In 2000, Ralph Nader — the Green Party candidate for president — proved to Americans that the platforms of the Republicans and the Democrats were synonymous with one another, therefore explaining why a third-party candidate would receive 2.47 percent of the national vote. His words still resonate with a nation run by a two-party duopoly.

This year, Nader is running as an Independent and has continued to make valuable clear distinctions in his policies. He has a clear exit strategy for Iraq involving the development of an international U.N.-run peacekeeping force, support of free and fair elections so that democratic self-rule can be established as soon as possible so as not to allow an American puppet to be put in a high governing position, providing humanitarian aid to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure that America has helped damage because of its invasion and long-term economic sanctions against the country and lastly making sure U.S. business interests do not profit from the invasion.

With regard to Sudan, Nader acknowledged that both men expressed sympathy and recognized the African Union in their responses. However, neither man gave any intent to support the African Union with "means necessary" to preserve these individuals from further horrors.

Nader has also hinted toward the fact that debate moderator Jim Lehrer's questions tended to be very narrow. Nothing was mentioned about the Israel/Palestine conflict, we heard nothing of global trade treaties, nor did we hear anything about the wasteful military budget.

What a shame it is that we live in a country that excludes third parties that bring useful and intelligent policies to the table. Rather then partisan bickering, Americans need to hear real issues.

It is a clear and simple fact — third parties do not turn out victors, but as David Broder of The Washington Post said in an Oct. 1 opinion piece entitled "Let all candidates debate," "candidates who have qualified for ballot position in a majority of states" should be allowed to debate. Their platforms can encourage policy shifts and campaigns that are more focused toward the issues

So let Nader, Green Party candidate David Cobb, Libertarian Michael Badnarik and Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka debate. It is in our best interests as democratic citizens. Who knows, maybe the words of one candidate will resonate with voters and produce another Jesse Ventura.

Cullen is a freshman in the College of Communication.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.