USA TODAY

Letter to the editor:

The first presidential debate is Monday and, not all the presidential candidates will have a chance to debate.

As a U.S. citizen and voter, I strongly believe that all Americans have the right to know whom we can vote for, so that we can choose the one who best represents our values.

We have two other candidates running besides Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They are Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein from the Green Party. Wouldn’t it be fair to conclude that the presidential debates are one of the most important events in our election process? We can’t have real democracy without a free exchange of ideas and an informed public. So why don’t we open the debates?! Write to the Commission on Presidential Debates and let them know we want this.

Sharon Bos; Stephens City, Va.

Facebook comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

Presidential elections set the political agenda by bringing forward new issues to the political dialogue.

The U.S. has been plagued by two big-business parties for most of its existence. Some transformative changes have come from third parties. In order to make the changes we need, those voices need to be heard.

— Kevin Zeese

Perhaps having a threshold is correct so you don’t have another Republican primary situation with so many candidates they can’t all fit on stage. But having three or four up there who are all on enough state ballots to win, would be good for democracy. Especially in the first debate! People forget there are three debates. Let people battle it out in the first one and see how the voters end up feeling about the candidates through polling. If Gary Johnson’s polling average went from 10% to 4% after participating in the first debate, maybe there would be a rationale to not include him. But right now anyone who advocates for not including people like him is just plain old anti-democracy and pro-duopoly.

— Melissa Machado

Policing the USA

We asked our followers whether having the Libertarian and Green party candidates in the presidential debate enriches or distracts from it. Tweets edited for clarity and grammar:

With third-party candidates at debates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be distracted from their personal attacks by real issues.

— @JonBachert

If they’re coming with educated ideas and views, it could only enrich the debates. Make the major party candidates do their homework.

— @lakorbel44

Distract. Look at what happened with Trump at the GOP debates.

— @anthonynacc

Enrich for sure. Our democracy can’t evolve by having such limited political options.

— @Letti4U

Enrich! Why let funding and private interests monopolize our choices? It’s our democratic right to hear from all parties.

— @atkinson_caryn

Distract. Neither third-party candidates is a viable option.

— @Wake2See

For more, follow @USATOpinion or #tellusatoday.