Politicos limit local debate, voter choice

Last year, I filed as a candidate in the race for Texas State Representative in District 134, which includes Rice University. As an undergraduate, I felt my decision would show my peers the many options they have when they step into the voting booths in November.

The two-party system dominates the political landscape in the United States, preventing alternative candidates from gaining political power of any significance. Yet this system is not enforced by true popular demand — every election season, we feel we must somehow select the lesser of two evils, lest we “waste” our votes. Maintaining liberty and democracy in our country necessitates altering this fundamentally flawed system.

District 134 has a wealthy, highly-educated populace. It has some of the top private and public schools in the state. The constituents are, presumably, intelligent enough to make sound decisions with their votes. Unfortunately, candidates’ constant attempts to silence the voices of opponents deny voters the opportunity to educate themselves about their choices.

Earlier this year, incumbent Republican Rep. Martha Wong steadfastly refused to debate either me or Democratic candidate Ellen Cohen, soundly reasoning that it would draw attention away from herself. During last Spring semester, Rice Young Democrats former President Ian Everhart approached me regarding a three-way debate to be hosted this October in the Rice Memorial Center, co-sponsored by the Rice College Republicans. I enthusiastically agreed to participate.

Since then, Wong has caved, agreeing to two separate debates, including this one at Rice. While details have yet to be publicized, current Rice Young Democrats President Ryan Goodland did inform me that my invitation to the event has been withdrawn. Goodland, who had spoken against my candidacy before, weakly apologized, reasoning that only my two opponents have a chance of winning. He did not acknowledge that I am a legitimate and serious candidate with clearly stated positions, reflecting sentiments from across the political spectrum. I also have full ballot access, granted by the signatures of tens of thousands of Texans who have stated that they want change.

There are many arguments against my exclusion, and my opponents have simplified my task in finding them.

“This district is one of the most educated — if not the most educated — in the state, and the idea that candidates don’t have to let voters compare them side by side is unthinkable,” Ellen Cohen’s campaign manager, Bill Kelley, said.

Wong’s campaign manager, Josh Hamilton, seems to agree: “We think this [debate] is great,” he said in the West University Examiner. “That’s what democracy is supposed to be about — candidates meeting face-to-face to explain their positions firsthand to voters.”

But apparently, voters do not deserve to hear any candidates who have not raised at least half a million in campaign funds. Instead, the Democrats and Republicans make the decision for the voters, achieving only a sanitized, politically expedient version of their own so-called democracy.

Perhaps the most disconcerting detail of this situation is how some of my fellow students at Rice have lowered themselves to encouraging such suppression of ideas. My own student activity fees will go to support an event from which I will be censored. While I have plans to appeal to the administration to intervene on my behalf, the underlying problem persists. Ask yourselves: Is this event being planned for the benefit of the voters, so they can learn all sides of the issues and make an informed decision, or are the organizers simply trying to secure additional power at society’s expense?

If I am, as they claim, not a serious candidate, what can my opponents lose by my inclusion in the debate besides from a few minutes to brush my ideas aside? Perhaps Wong and Cohen fear that they themselves may publicly have their platforms toppled in an intellectual discussion.

Whether or not this matter is resolved, I encourage everyone to educate themselves fully to discover their full range of options. Voters should attend debates, but they should not depend only on the candidates for facts and viewpoints. Instead, they should read as many news sources as they can — both print and electronic — and never shy away from political discussions with peers. It is about time voters got the full political picture, and the movement should start on campus.

Mhair Dekmezian is a Brown College junior and Libertarian candidate for State Representative for District 134.

Back to top