Candidate Debates

* The exclusion of billionaire crackpot Ross Perot from this year’s debates (Sept. 18) isn’t nearly as significant as the exclusion of Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne, who will be on every ballot in America this November.

Browne’s first duty as president would be to eliminate the federal income tax. Personally, I would have loved to see Bill Clinton try arguing in favor of the status quo, and Bob Dole trying to counter with a hollow promise to cut rates by a measly 15%. Browne would have wiped up the floor with them!

JAMES DAWSON

Tarzana

* Add to Llewellyn Rockwell’s (Commentary, Sept. 18) list of political parties excluded from the presidential debates: The Natural Law Party, as of now on the ballot in 48 states, qualified for federal matching funds and published an upbeat, practical platform with scientifically proven solutions to problems in most areas of life. Its presidential and vice presidential candidates are John Hagelin and Mike Tompkins.

I, too, am deeply concerned about a “democratic” system in which only those who have a chance of winning public office can debate public issues before the nation. Voters should determine who is heard and who is not.

The two major parties already have tried the solutions they believed in, and these solutions did not work, or did not work well enough.

FRIEDA M. BARNA

North Hollywood

* Perot received $30 million of taxpayer money. Not allowing him in the presidential debates is absolute proof that we need to change the system. Whether or not you plan to vote for Perot is no longer the issue. Perot has a right to be heard. Your paper and the polls have continuously intimated that Dole has no realistic chance of winning this election, yet he’s in the debates. Why? Because special interest money has control over both the Republican and Democratic parties. The political system and our democracy will suffer for years to come.

MARION E. WILSON

Irvine

* Thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates for deciding that Perot would not be included in the debates, and for excluding without mention Ralph Nader, as well. To guide voters before the presidential election, commission members have chosen the legitimate candidates, decided who qualifies to be heard and, gratefully, informed us of our real options.

Evidently, the commission is not pro-choice.

RICHARD BAKER

Beverly Hills