TV REVIEWS : The Election and the Politics of Race : CNN’s six-part ‘Democracy in America’ series premieres with ‘A House Divided,’ while PBS’ ‘Voices of the Electorate’ airs Latino and African- : American grievances.

It might be too much to expect reality from television, but the air of unreality over much of the three hours’ worth of PBS and CNN specials on race and the election is especially stunning.

“A House Divided,” the premiere of CNN’s six-part “Democracy in America” series, airs Sunday at 7 p.m. PBS’ “Voices of the Electorate: The African-American Voter” airs Sunday at 10 p.m. on KCET Channel 28, KPBS Channel 15 and KVCR Channel 24, with “Voices of the Electorate: The Hispanic-American Voter” airing Monday at 10 p.m. on KCET Channel 28, KPBS Channel 15 and at 9 p.m. on KVCR Channel 24.

The idea behind the “Voices” project, put together by the Independent Production Fund, the National Coalition on Black Voter Participation and the Hispanic Policy Development Project, was to stage “town meetings” in various U.S. cities, including Louisville, Ky., where local blacks organized one with little outside support. By contrast, the Latino meetings were linked by satellite, care of Miami-based Univision.

This very disparity in media resources points to a striking difference in the two minority communities. The linkage allows the Latino participants to talk--and debate--each other with unbridled honesty (ironically, some complain about Miami’s, and Univision’s, dominance over Latino media image-making). African-Americans, though, are seen talking more in isolation, uttering opinions and grievances to each other, rather than to some larger public. (The segments were provided to both presidential candidates for their responses; significantly, only Bill Clinton answered the call.)

What looms large over both assemblies, however, is a class divide within each ethnic group. The already-involved, already-affluent join in, and the disaffected underclass, as in the country as a whole, remains silent. While the debates steer toward the big issues--education, health care, social and personal responsibility--it remains a middle-class rather than poor people’s agenda.

“A House Divided” is a little less unreal, if only because it does visit the underclass. The image of little Terrance Tompkins, an innocent imprisoned, peering fearfully through the mesh fence at his home in a South Side Chicago project, speaks louder than the many statistics reported here about a system in free-fall.

Much of the program is given over to apparent solutions to breaking cycles of welfare dependency, second-rate education and the gang/drug culture. They’re good-looking but individual examples, such as a government experiment in relocating ghetto families in the suburbs--with superb results. The point that government works when public money is invested rather than merely spent is only the beginning. The deeper point never raised here is why so many isolated examples haven’t been put together for a national strategy.