What essential aspect of democracy is routinely denied to some candidates? The right to debate.

This year we have four candidates on the ballot in the hotly contested Fourth Congressional District but it is widely expected that Republican incumbent Christopher Shays from Bridgeport and second-time democratic challenger Diane Farrell from Westport will garner the lion's share of the votes.

Does that mean that Phil Maymin, the Libertarian Party candidate from Greenwich and Richard Duffee, the Green Party candidate from Stamford, should be excluded from the debates? Absolutely not!

Of the 11 scheduled debates involving Fourth District Candidates, Maymin is presently excluded from four. At press time, Duffee was on the slate for only two of the debates. The exclusions result from the selection criteria of the various organizations that are sponsoring the debates.

In general, the rationale is that candidates who don't have broad support and sufficient financing should be excluded from the debates because they are not viable candidates. Naturally, different organizations have different definitions and procedures for deciding whether candidates qualify.

As a matter of practicality, the sponsoring organizations are concerned with logistics. They may feel that having too many candidates participating could dilute the debate or cause procedural problems.

Be that as it may, it is not the job of an organization that promotes democracy and debate to decide who is and who is not a legitimate candidate. This amounts to a pre-election screening process that doesn't seem very democratic at all. The League of Women Voters, in particular, needs to take another look at its policy in this regard. We would expect it to have a more inclusive approach in this matter.

Minor party candidates may not get a lot of votes but they deserve to be heard. In addition, they often raise questions that the major parties like to avoid. In this way, they can influence the tenor of debates and serve an important purpose that far exceeds the number of votes they may ultimately receive. We need Libertarians reminding us about the importance of limiting the size and cost of government and its intrusion into our personal lives. We need Greens reminding us to treat spaceship Earth with respect.

The concept of debate is central to democracy. All efforts should be made to accommodate as many legitimate candidates as possible. Granted, things would get crazy if you had a dozen candidates but there are only four candidates on the ballot in the Fourth District.

Fortunately, all four candidates have been invited to the debate in Westport to be held Sunday, Oct. 15, 7:30 p.m., at Temple Israel.

For those unable to attend the debate in Westport, all four candidates have also been invited to the debate set for Monday, Oct. 16, 8 p.m., at the nearby Regina A. Quick Center for the Arts at Fairfield University.

Another practice that needs to have light shed on it is the habit of some incumbents refusing to debate. Chris Shays would have gotten a lot of flack if he had refused to debate Diane Farrell. However, it is not uncommon for frontrunners in local races to avoid debate by saying they're too busy or that they have a conflict.

It is widely accepted that political frontrunners generally prefer to avoid debate because it represents downside risk without much potential reward. If you're already comfortably ahead, why would you risk losing a debate? You have little to gain and a lot to lose. An eminently logical and politically astute approach that is, nevertheless, completely self-serving.

Excluding legitimate candidates from debates and avoiding debate are both un-American and undemocratic practices.