Ever since the Supreme Court decision, saying it was OK for money to speak in elections, the media have been even worse about covering the campaigns of non-major party candidates. The Supreme Court was as wrong in this decision as it was over 100 years ago when they said separate but equal was OK — and for the same reason. As the Court later had to admit, if there was separation, there was no equality. Separating political voice by amount of money discriminates by marginalizing and disenfranchising those voices who do not speak for the wealthy.

As the reduced numbers of voters actually voting indicates, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the major parties. Rather than find out why, blame is placed on voters. This is like blaming rape victims for causing an act of violence.

Just as this country could not continue half-slave and half-free, it cannot continue with only half of the eligible voters casting a vote. History has shown us that alternative candidates serve as an outlet for input the two major parties are not listening to.

The media should be covering alternative candidates. Since there are no Senate seats up in Iowa this time around, and no state offices on the ballot, the congressional election would only require the media in each congressional district to cover a few additional candidates. In the 3rd district that would be three more. Why is this not being done?

Sue AtkinsonGraduate studentCommunity and regional planning, history and political science