Last night, an American presidential candidate came to the University. A passionate speaker, he touched on all the major issues — the war in Iraq, homeland security, education, civil liberties — and cited relevant portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to support his positions. He made his opinions evident. He did not evade questions from the audience. Clearly, his name was not George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. The speaker was Michael Badnarik, presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

Although he is on the ballot in 46 states (including Virginia), Badnarik and his ideas were unfamiliar to many students. Why? The answer is simple — neither he nor his party is part of the mainstream. Like other third parties that deviate from the standard Democrat-Republican rubric, Libertarians are all but ignored by the conventional media. As a result, voters who rely on the popular wisdom of Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews in casting their ballots find themselves rationalizing votes for lesser candidates who spend more time trading jabs about each other’s military service than they do offering insight as to how our country could be improved.

Third-party candidates who are not sanctioned by the status quo come to be viewed as “radical” or perhaps “impractical.” And some of them may be. But popular wisdom can also be unreliable, and the media can be biased (to the right and left alike). Voters should take an active role in educating themselves, as both a safeguard against bias as a civic duty. For example, a Democratic voter might be pleased to learn that Badnarik supports the rights of gays to marry, ending the war on drugs and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Likewise, a Republican might be impressed to hear that he also supports free trade, privatizing social security and protecting the right to bear arms. The point is that both sides will benefit from a richer debate.

Whether you identify yourself as a staunch Democrat or an ardent Republican — or, especially, if you feel alienated by both — it is hard to argue that more choice is a bad thing. In a political system monopolized by two major parties, limited choice will always be the status quo. Logic dictates that both Democrats and Republicans are encouraged to shift their platforms toward the mainstream in order to attract moderates. In short: Ideological conviction often takes a back seat in a political race involving only two contestants.

So what is the solution? In a nation of over 280 million people, voters should not feel constrained to limit themselves to two choices. Or, in the least, Democratic and Republican candidates should abandon the ad hominems and critically address the merits of the issues. But because the two-party system gives them no incentive to do so, the protocol regarding debates must first be changed. Currently, the Commission on Presidential Debates has allowed Republicans and Democrats to insulate themselves from challengers, who must first receive 15 percent of voter support in the polls in order to participate. This threshold must be lowered. Instead of a percentage rule, the commission could examine how many states in which a candidate’s name appears on the ballot.

What’s the worst that could happen as a result of considering a wider range of ideas? You might be persuaded to change your mind? Either way, the two parties would be given a due run for their money, an increased rigor of competition that we should appreciate as students of Mr. Jefferson’s University.

After all, it was our Founder who said: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself.”