(Last) Wednesday’s editorial expressed disappointment with the Commission on Presidential Debates for being undemocratic.

I think it goes much further than that.

Right now, there are five candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election for the presidency—the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Reform and Natural Law parties’ candidates.

I have seen all the candidates present intelligent, reasonable reasons for giving them the job of President of the United States.

I have heard some argue that it is a waste of time to give the “third party” candidates a chance because they “can’t win.”

If the debates are closed to outsiders, they are probably correct that a “third party” candidate can’t win, but an open debate would change that.

In the 1992 elections, Perot was at around 7 percent in the polls before the debates.

He was above 20 percent after the debates.

He told the american people what he wanted to do, and those who agreed supported him. Perot is not the only candidate who can defend his positions.

Harry Browne, the Libertarian presidential candidate, is a successful businessman and author of the book “Why Government Doesn’t Work.”

He does an excellent job of explaining why the federal government should be smaller, and how he plans to eliminate the IRS.

I have also watched the Natural Law Party candidate on C-SPAN give intelligent, reasonable reasons why all five candidates deserve to participate in the debates.

The debates have a huge affect on the prestige of a candidate, to say nothing of the free national TV coverage.

To leave three of the five candidates out of the debate is a spit in the face of all who have fought and died to defend and uphold our Constitution.

I hope all of you will write the Commission on Presidential Debates and demand that all five candidates be included in the remaining presidential debates.

Steve Chapman

Senior

Economics