Although there were many jokes about his plans to reshape America, it’s undeniable that billionaire H. Ross Perot had an impact on the 1992 presidential election.

Perot finished the election with 19 percent of the vote, and although he didn’t win any electoral college votes, many political experts agree that he took many votes away from President George Bush, making it easier for Bill Clinton to advance to the highest office in the nation.

But imagine for a minute what the 1992 election would have been like without Perot’s participation in the presidential debates.

There would have been fewer jokes on Letterman and Leno. Who knows how many people would have voted for Perot if they hadn’t seen him in the televised debates?

Perhaps his final percentage would have been different — we might have had a different president.

Because of a recent ruling by an independent, nonpartisan council, a Third Party candidate may not be able to participate in the debates. According to the ruling, a third party candidate will only be able to participate in presidential debates if he or she has 15 percent support, according to polls set up by the council.

Under those guidelines, Perot wouldn’t have been able to participate in the first presidential debate. Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura wouldn’t have been able to participate in debates during his run for office, and he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to shock the nation when he won.

Whatever you may feel about Perot, Ventura and potential Reform Party candidates for the presidency billionaire Donald Trump and former Republican candidate Pat Buchanan, their voices are necessary in the political process.

One of the main reasons people are turned off by politics and the political process in general is because it sometimes seems that the two candidates from the major parties are too similar. There’s little choice for voters who are already disenchanted.

It’s understandable why the independent council wouldn’t want every Tom, Dick and Harry from Nowhere, USA, to invade the debates and start spouting off ideas. Presidential debates can drone on and guidelines aren’t a bad idea.

Limiting the number of viable candidates who can participate in debates isn’t giving the American people enough variety; it isn’t what the Founding Fathers intended; it isn’t democracy.

The independent council should reconsider its decision to try to achieve more of a happy medium: Something that will give the presidential debates more structure while allowing people to see more than two talking heads.

Iowa State Daily Editorial Board: Sara Ziegler, Greg Jerrett, Kate Kompas, Carrie Tett and David Roepke.