The politics of disenfranchisement in the American political process

In political science, disenfranchisement is generally defined as the practice of depriving an individual of some privilege, participatory right, voice, or immunity. Although some well-known types of disenfranchisement in the American political process that included race, gender, and age, were corrected by the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments, other types of disenfranchisement continue to negatively impact the American political process. These include felony disenfranchisement, which is the barring of people convicted of a felony from voting even after they have served their sentence and reentered society, and different types of indirect disentrancement. The prohibition of Dr. John Mertens and Warren Mosler from the Connecticut Senatorial debate on Monday night by The Hartford Courant and Fox 61, is a textbook example of indirect disenfranchisement.

The exclusion of Dr. John Mertons and Warren Mosler from the Connecticut Senatorial debate on Monday night between Richard Blumenthal and Linda McMahon reveal how both of the status quo political parties work together to protect their own political power and interests. In an election campaign dominated by over whelming anti establishment and anti incumbent rhetoric, it is no surprise that both establishment political parties are working together to prohibit independent candidates like Mertens and Mosler from participating in the public debate. Both local newspaper The Hartford Courant, and the local television stations, Fox 61, by not inviting the other two candidates who have earned a spot on the ballot, are failing in their duty to act as an independent watchdog as envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. John Mertens, a Professor of Engineering at Trinity College in Hartford, was one of the first candidates to secure a place on the November ballot. Using the political party that Joseph Lieberman established after his 2006 democratic primary loss to Ned Lemont, Dr. Mertens is the U.S. Senatorial candidate for the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. In addition to the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate, Warren Mosler, an internationally renowned financial and job creation expert, is the Independent Party candidate who has also earned a place on the November ballot. It is a disservice and an injustice to Connecticut voters not to invite these two qualified and competent candidates from participating in the public debate.

In stark contrast to a career politician on the democratic ticket or the multi-millionaire politician on the republican ticket, the non-establishment candidates running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut are far more representative of the Connecticut residents they will represent in Washington D.C.

Prohibiting these qualified and eligible candidates from participating in the televised debate exposes how the democratic and republican parties are able to maintain a stranglehold on political power in America. Already hampered by not having the private resources to buy media coverage or a staff of professional political strategists such as Linda McMahon is doing, the exclusion of non-establishment candidates like John Mertens and William Mosler is one of the leading factors as why the United States is listed as only the 18th most democratic country in the world in the Economist Magazine Democracy Ranking Index.

The lack of press coverage concerning the exclusion of John Mertens and Warren Mosler in the first public debate among the Connecticut Senatorial candidates reveals how the change promised by some politicians has to also come from institutions like the press and from the level of involvement of everyday citizens in the political process.