Greg Sturges' editorial justifying America's current lack of democracy demands a response. He contends "political apathy and parties that look and sound similar are not the signs of a political system on the brink of collapse, but rather . . . are the signs of a system that works." Furthermore, "We get a choice of two moderate candidates who favor the status quo. That's what a democracy is supposed to do." This line of reasoning stands in direct opposition to true democracy. The last time I checked, a democratic society was not designed to reduce their citizens' choices.

A true democracy offers its people many choices, and doesn't force them into choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Sturges argues, "There is no conspiracy preventing (third party) candidates from getting elected." If this is true, what exactly has the corporately funded, Democrat- and Republican- controlled Commission on Presidential Debates done? In 1996, any presidential candidate with 5 percent of the vote was included in the debates. This year, the Commission arbitrarily -- and conveniently -- raised that number to 15 percent.

Although the majority of Americans polled (64 percent) wanted to include third party candidates, the CPD felt it was in our best interest to hear only Bush and Gore debate, or as they did in their second meeting, agree with one another an overwhelming 28 times.

To think that my whole life I've believed democracy was designed to give all citizens the opportunity of equal representation. Thank you, Greg Sturges, for pointing me in the right direction.