It's the Patriot Act defense — that same logic.
That's right. The federal government has done a pretty aggressive job in trying to prosecute voter fraud... I don't have my paper on me, but it is just a handful of convictions. Yet we're passing laws that have the potential of disenfranchising millions of people. It could be anything from, in some states they require payment for the ID — just the confusion it causes in the polls, there's a lot of states where the poll workers themselves are confused, they're not trained well about what to ask for, and people aren't able to vote. It just goes on and on. And then the reality that a lot of people don't have an ID and won't get one for whatever reason, or can't get one. And when you put that, the millions that could be affected, versus the couple dozen voter fraud [cases]... It's partisan politics that these laws are going into place. It's partisan politics, and partisanship should not enter into voting.
And the reason it's partisan — I'm not being clear — these kinds of laws end up discriminating in a partisan manner. They discriminate against people that primarily vote Democratic. It's not fair. Because those are the types of people who tend to be affected by, say, picture ID laws. It's not fair, and it shouldn't be done. So in that case, let's say you buy into that issue, a person [should] write letters to the editor about that, write letters to your congressman, and just take a step and say, "I don't want you to vote for this law."
The other thing that a lot of people have really responded to is sign up to be a poll worker on Election Day. And that is a gigantic issue, because there's not a lot of resources pumped into our elections, so precincts can be, especially when things get busy - and I think it's gonna be a big turnout this year - it gets kind of chaotic and crazy, and there aren't many poll workers. And the poll workers tend to be pretty old, and that's a double-edged sword when there's more technology involved. And people, when I do screenings, really respond to that. Because the thing that's beautiful about that, it's a real opportunity to view the process up close, and to be an advocate for voters. If the voter's having a problem or having trouble, or maybe it's someone who doesn't speak English, or whatever, and they're having problems with things, you can actually help the voter. And a lot of times it's an adversarial atmosphere. So you can actually be a good guy within the system. And get paid; you don't get paid a lot, but it's a good thing to do.
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.