Quite correctly, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby asserts that presidential debates are not debates at all, and notes that they fail to inform voters, persuade the undecided, or clarify the candidates’ positions (“A vote to repair the presidential debates,’’ Opinion, July 17). However, Jacoby overlooks one key factor, which is the sponsorship of the debates.

While the desirability of an “Oxford-style’’ debate, such as those produced by the group Intelligence Squared, is obvious, the needed reform will never happen as long as the debates are organized and controlled by the two major parties and the broadcast media outlets. In the past, the League of Women Voters sponsored the debates. It doesn’t have to be any particular group, as long as it is a nonpartisan and private organization.

The absurdity of a panel of questioners, all working for the news outlet broadcasting the debate, asking different questions of each individual candidate should go without saying. The candidates should have to respond to the same questions and reply to each other’s comments.

In addition, the positioning of candidates on stage based on their momentary standing in the polls is incomprehensible. The suggestion of a self-fulfilling prophesy is inescapable.

In 1992, Ross Perot joined the other two candidates on the presidential debate stage, which prompted the two major parties subsequently to take greater control of the process. In a campaign season in which so many voters are lamenting the choice between two allegedly unpopular candidates, maybe a real debate with the Green, Libertarian, and other minor parties represented onstage alongside the Democratic and Republican nominees would allow the presidential debates to be a legitimately informative forum for public issues.

Dennis N. Ricci, Walpole

The writer is a senior lecturer in politics and history at Curry College.