"Who won the debate?"

That's been a topic of discussion after each of the three presidential debates and the single vice-presidential debate.

The answer, frankly, has been debatable, depending the one's party affiliation and degree of partisanship.

But one thing about the debates is clear, at least according to some observers - the clear loser is the American public.

The current, tightly controlled and highly scripted debate formats do not serve American voters or democracy, according to those who lament the current two-party control of the debates that been demonstrated in strict limits in the format, questioning and follow up and, perhaps more importantly, no inclusion of third party candidates who might force discussion of topics that make both Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable.

The so-called debates that voters have seen in recent presidential elections are really better described as "glorified news conferences between two entrenched powers," according to George Farah, founder of a nonpartisan group called Open Debates and author of a book titled No Debate.

One of the biggest problems, according to Farah, is the total control of the debates by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-governmental organization that wrested the debates away from the League of Women Voters in 1988. That takeover had the full support of Republican and Democratic party leaders.

Under the League's control, John Anderson, a former Republican congressman who ran for president as an Independent, was included in the presidential debate in 1980.

In 1992, when the two parties had their own strategic reasons to want Ross Perot included in the presidential debates, he was allowed to appear. But by 1996, representatives for President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole decided Perot would not serve their purposes, so he was excluded from the debate.

Without any voice or opinion outside of mainstream Republican or Democratic talking points, the American public is seeing and hearing a limited discussion of the serious issues facing the country. Republicans and Democrats control the national debate as co-conspirators or a national cartel. Maintenance of that shared power arrangement is less likely to be disturbed if outside voices and third party dissent can be stifled.

Yet third party candidates and voices outside the Democratic or Republican mainstream are responsible for advancing such now well-accepted concepts as abolition of slavery, public education, Social Security and unemployment compensation.

Third party candidates can bring to light issues that the two major-party candidates would rather not talk about. Most people remember that Ross Perot was responsible for focusing public attention on the national debt and mounting federal deficit. Today, the deficit is something most people, at least those outside of Washington, D.C., are very concerned about.

Though their chances of capturing the White House might be slim, Ralph Nader and the candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties likely have a very different view of how to deal with the challenges facing the nation. Their inclusion in the debates, and if allowed to direct questions to the major-party candidates, might force Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry to talk about issues they would rather not discuss publicly.

While admittedly better than no joint, public appearances of the Republican and Democratic candidates, this election's debates have still shortchanged the American public. The Commission of Presidential Debates, working solely on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties and producing a detailed 32-page "memorandum of understanding" for setting rules and limitations in the 2004 debates, made sure the interests of the candidates came ahead of the interests of the public.

Arguments will continue over who won each of this year's debates. The clear loser was the American public and open democracy.