Should a person who is legally a candidate for public office -- but stands virtually no chance of being elected -- be treated the same as the candidates who do? 

That's the question surrounding the situation of Jackie Green, independent candidate in Louisville's mayoral race, who's faced an uphill battle getting included in the pre-election debates. And it's a tough one. 

Logic does tell me that only Hal Heiner or Greg Fischer have any chance of winning. So why should a third party take up valuable time we could spend assessing them? 

But then again, a big reason Fischer and Heiner enjoy this advantage is because they're the nominees of the two major parties. And since people are constantly complaining that they're tired of what they consider the shopworn policies of both Democrats and Republicans, why shouldn't the views of someone who is neither be heard? 

No, Green won't win. But it could be worthwhile to see how Heiner and Fischer would deal with the issues Green would raise in a debate. 

Then again, if Green is allowed to participate, where do we draw the line? Including everyone without any qualifying standards would reduce the whole process to a farce. 

I think I'm for excluding candidates from debates who have no chance of winning the election. But I'm not sure that's the right position.  

What do you think?  Give us a call and share your thoughts. 

I'm Bill Lamb, and that's my…Point of View.