3 candidates, 3 debaters

Is a political debate supposed to be for the benefit of the voters — or the politicians?
Both, or else the politicians wouldn’t submit themselves to the process; after all, they want to win votes, not risk losing them.
But for the benefit of democracy, voters should come first. And for that reason, they should get the chance to hear all the candidates on the ballot, so they are better prepared to cast an intelligent vote.
State Sen. Robert Hurt, Republican, is currently locked in a debate about a debate: whether he is willing to allow third-party candidate Jeffrey C. Clark to join a session with himself and Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello, the incumbent.
Mr. Perriello has agreed to Mr. Clark’s participation. Late last week, Mr. Hurt said that, no, he does not want a three-way debate.
“We cannot allow the important debate in this election to be sidetracked by a candidate who is not serious about his campaign or his ability to win,” he said in a written statement.
Mr. Clark was serious enough to get the requisite number of signatures on a petition to place his name on the ballot. He is a legitimate candidate.
His ability to win? Doubtful. His Tea Party candidacy — if it runs true to the form demonstrated by previous third-party efforts — might be expected to pull no more than 3 percent of the vote.
But that doesn’t mean a third-party candidacy is valueless. If a third party can make a decent showing — even at just a few percentage points — it can send a real message to the winning side.
Voters can register a strong statement even if their candidate doesn’t win. Thus they can affect, if not the election, then the direction of governance that follows the election.
But mainstream politicians often refuse to debate third-party contenders. They fear risking the chance that votes that might have been theirs would instead be transferred to the “nonviable” candidate.
Because Mr. Hurt and Mr. Clark are both seeking conservatives’ votes, Mr. Hurt is perceived as protecting his own interests by refusing to let the Tea Partyer in on a three-way debate.
In addition, he is embroiled in a further debate over whether he backtracked on an earlier statement that he would be willing to debate Mr. Clark. He was quoted as saying, “Absolutely.”
His campaign later said his answer was not meant to be a direct reply about whether he would allow Mr. Clark to debate, and that in fact he is not willing to debate him.
The statement also suggested that Mr. Perriello’s motivations for allowing Mr. Clark to debate were less than altruistic. If Mr. Clark’s presence could pull votes from Mr. Hurt, then that vote loss could help Mr. Perriello — and so it is to the incumbent’s advantage to allow the Tea Party candidate on stage.
This is an interesting sub-debate, but it is not the main issue.
The main issue is the voters.
And the voters would be best served by seeing and hearing all three candidates debate. All three will be on the ballot in November.
Before they pull that lever, voters should be as well-informed as possible, and a three-way debate could be an immediate and effective form of political education.