All of us will soon know who have been elected to various offices on the state and federal level. The time-worn cliché has been, “May the best man (or woman) win!” The reality is that the best person often doesn’t get elected. The well-heeled, politically connected candidate emerges as the winner since the deck is stacked against any challenger who doesn’t have a boatload of money.

Case in point: Dr. Luis-Daniel Munoz is a candidate for governor. As a medical doctor he has devoted his life to research to cure illness. As a gubernatorial candidate he has diagnosed to perfection the ills of Rhode Island and has well-thought out prescriptions to cure its maladies. The reality is that you may not even know that he is running for office, despite his 9 month ‘shoe-leather” campaign. Why not? He has a modest income and he gets little to no exposure since he is not even allowed into the debates.

Now, the sponsoring media have all these alleged “criteria” which block lesser known candidates from participation. The “exclusion” reasons are slippery and gross rationalizations. In a debate, for example, from which Dr. Munoz was excluded, WJAR-TV management along with Rhode Island College could not give a cogent reason as to why he wasn’t allowed in the debate. He had the same problem with the Providence Journal debate and the University of Rhode Island. WPRI bosses also wouldn’t allow him to participate. In effect, public universities and public airwaves which are supposed to uphold the ideals of democracy actually rubberstamp elections which can only be won by the rich and sometimes infamous.

As far as the television media outlets, a debate is fulfillment of the “public service” requirement. When the average person like Dr. Munoz puts himself out there, the lack of coverage or of basic evenhandedness of allowing him to be heard results in a lower vote count. The stations then congratulate themselves on their decisions to exclude candidates without ever recognizing that their exclusions have created their “justifications”.

Even worse, are the public institutions who won’t allow all the candidates to participate? It’s quite a lesson the colleges are reinforcing for their students. In effect, they help maintain the status quo of the “same o” races where the political insiders alone are heard.

The media and the universities justify their undemocratic posture by asserting that they don’t want to take time away from candidates who can possibly win. Since when should they be in the business of handicapping the respective races? The very lack of exposure is a major causative factor. Heaven knows that the well-heeled party candidates repeatedly tell us who they are (or just as often who they or their opponent really aren’t) by the ad seriatim advertising. Shouldn’t the media and public universities at least have a level playing field?
Sadly, the same folks who espouse that time should not be taken away from front runners are also the same people who somehow think their vote is more important than anyone else's because they usually embrace the thesis that a third party shouldn’t take votes away from their candidate. Sorry! All voters are created equal and should vote for whomever they truly want. It’s a blemish on democracy that voters don’t get to hear contenders.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.