Even in the midst of the media feeding frenzy over Obamamania and the Republicans’ efforts to force some shoulder room on the stage for John McCain, it seems that Americans would still prefer to have more options. According to a recent poll from Zogby, the majority of voters would prefer to see Bob Barr at the lectern when presidential candidates debate this fall.

More than half of likely voters nationwide – 55% – want Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr to participate in presidential debates this fall, while nearly half – 46% – said they think Ralph Nader should be allowed into the on-stage fray, the latest Zogby Interactive polling shows.

Among political independents, 69% said Barr should be at a lectern with Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, and a majority of Republicans and Democrats agreed. Among Democrats, 52% said they think Barr should participate, while 50% of Republicans agreed.

While I have covered this subject in a number of places, one disappointing response I consistently see is, “I like Bob Barr, but a vote for him is just a vote against McCain.” The fact is, of course, that a vote for Obama is a vote against McCain. And a vote for McCain is a vote against both Obama and Barr. (None of the above votes do anything for Nader and the rest of them, either.) Barr’s appeal isn’t strictly limited to potential McCain supporters. Is it so difficult to imagine voters who may agree with Obama’s distaste for American military adventurism and share his concerns about eroding civil rights and privacy, yet have reservations about his experience, his plans to expand the Federal Government and question how he plans to pay for all of his “change” next year?

These poll results are hardly surprising. Americans like having choices. It’s pretty much built into the national psyche. Being told you can only choose an item from column A or B chafes on us. Whether you have any intention of supporting a third party candidate or not, what is the objection to getting an alternate voice on the stage? Aside from some sort of fear driven by brand loyalty for your own candidate’s fortunes, it is difficult to imagine a valid complaint about allowing a Libertarian in the debates. As I pointed out previously, when all the candidates are included, nearly 20% of Americans have indicated an interest in voting for someone other than McCain or Obama. And these results come early in the season, when a large segment of Americans are barely paying attention to the race yet.

I’m aware that you can’t really make room for every single person who gets on the ballot in every location, but candidates who manage to do that in a majority of the states certainly have a horse in the race. If you’re really interested in counting all the votes and making all the votes count, what say we make sure all the options on the menu are available? There are no losers in this issue unless we shut down some of the voices under consideration.