Monday, Ross Perot announced that he’s jumping into the 1996 presidential election arena. Actually, Perot himself hasn’t decided to run for President, but he’s interested in creating a third political party. Unlike its counterparts, however, the party’s name won’t appear on the Iowa election ballot.

State election law is greatly in favor of Republican and Democratic parties, which by law are the only groups that can claim the status of “political party.” Groups, to be listed on the ballot as a party, must gain two percent of the vote in a statewide election. After winning that percentage, the party has just one year to request access to the ballot.

So, should a third party be formed, and no matter who runs on its platform, only the candidate’s name would be allowed to appear on the ballot. Their affiliation would be conspicuously absent.

But there is little point in legislation that restricts election ballots to only major parties. For one, it gives traditional parties an unfair advantage in terms of candidate visibility. Secondly, what purpose does it serve to require ballot establishment three years prior to an election?

In a political world that can change by the day, it’s not necessary to place such strict regulations so far before an election. It’s just not practical.

Historically, political parties rise in response to dissatisfactory political conditions. This being the case, it’s not fair to disable unknown candidates from affiliating themselves with non-traditional political parties. Perot (like a growing part of the populace), sees the need for a third party. Why not acknowledge that fact in earnest by placing it on the ballot? What’s there to lose?