I think from the standpoint that it makes it a more difficult strategy is good. I think anything that takes it away from being such a game on how you win an election, and where you're looking at it just state-by-state, is probably a good thing. And would help elections be more fair.
This is the activism, "how can people get involved" question. To put it simply and bluntly: As a voter, what steps can I take to ensure that my vote is properly counted?
I never know where to go with that, because there are so many different things. I often start with the least satisfying answer, which is "do something." I think that's the main thing, just to take an action. With everybody, what they want to do and how it fits in with their particular life, is different. One type of thing that a lot of people do - and I can't tell you how many people come up to me and say this - is ask for a paper ballot. People do it, [even] right here in Tennessee, where you can't get one, but they ask anyway.
You can't get one?
No, you can't get a paper ballot. I don't believe you can get one anywhere in Tennessee. Not by law. Ask anyway. The reason to ask is that it gets the word back. It gets back to the election director. "We had a bunch of people asking for paper ballots." It's just a good, strong thing to send the message out.
I think, in general, just opposing anything that makes it difficult for people to vote. And that, to me, means opposing picture ID laws that are very discriminatory against older people, people who don't have cars, and they tend to skew against people who are poorer or African-American. That's not a good direction for us to be going. There are laws, they're getting more stringent about those kinds of things, and we have not traditionally required that stringent of an ID... I may be getting on a tangent here, but...
It's the relevant tangent...
The reason it's important not to go there legislatively is that there's no voting fraud problem in this country of note. They're passing these laws with the idea that people are going and impersonating other voters, so they can vote twice. Or illegal immigrants are going in to try to vote. Yeah, right...
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Your interview would be a lot more interesting if you hadn't stuck to nothing but softball questions and fawning on your subject.
I'd have liked to see you ask him if he had any evidence at all that any voting machines had ever been hacked during an election (there is none) and perhaps hit him with some questions about the hundreds of thousands of bogus registrations from ACORN and other leftist groups, or perhaps the cash for votes practices of Democrats in a number of southern states.
But I guess that wouldn't suit your agenda, just as the media avoids reporting on election fraud in general because they know that any unbiased and halfway thorough investigation will reveal so much more fraud from the left than the right that it would be embarassing.
Think about it. All this furor about voting machines, yet it is the city and county and state electoral bureaucracies which are dominated by Democrats which have been the main supporters of the use of these machines.
Partisans like the people who made this film have identified a legitimate problem, but they need to come to grips at some point with the reality that if there is fraud going on, it's much more likely to be their political allies who are doing it.
Dave
2 - David R. Perry
Dave,
I'm assuming that you haven't actually watched said movie. I would recommend it (it's available via Netflix, by the way; in case anyone here subscribes), as I found it very interesting, and many of the criticisms you mention are dealt with in more detail there. I was not attempting to rehash every point or claim of the film.
Granted, the film has an admittedly obvious leftist bent to it, but I think it's ridiculous to criticize the main thrust of the film, which deals with the need for more accountability and checks and balances in the voting process. That is something that only benefits a real democracy. Your quibble seems to be with "why" they're looking into it in the first place, which is less important.
If you'd like to ask your own questions, the production company seems fairly open to media inquiries. Perhaps you can help fill in the blanks of the discussion.
By the way, your critique would be more interesting if you didn't exhibit an obviously equal, but opposite, agenda. (Agendas come from both sides, you know.)
- DRP
3 - Dave Nalle
Well, I'd normally take a middle course, but when dealing with a partisan position I'm naturally inclined to take the opposite one.
I've done a lot of reading on the voting security issue == things like actual academic studies -- but there's so much propaganda out there that I'm reluctant to watch a film. The format is much easier to use for propaganda and distortion in the grand Michael Moore tradition.
These things are getting on cable, though. So when it does I'll be all over it.
Dave
4 - John
The bias is so overwhelmingly against Republicans that the film is self- discrediting.