So what I wanted to show in the film were these stories of people who really were able to do something, who succeeded. That's where you get into Bruce Funk, or Clint Curtis. Or Athan Gibbs, right here in Nashville. Situations like this, we're still in a time and a country where a single person, taking an action, makes a big difference. I got into it with those stories, and it's been very eye-opening for me. The machine is still very large, and it's very powerful. But individual people making a racket have been what have changed the laws in this country.
Small groups going to election boards, showing up at meetings where they're not used to people showing up, and saying "We don't want these machines in our district." State after state after state it has caused laws to be changed. I'll give you an interesting mixture of how people react to it. Some will say, "God, this is so depressing." Others will say, "Sign me up! What can I do to do something about it?" And that's what I really wanted to accomplish, to get people to want to do something. And it's been eye opening for me.
That's actually a good segue to my next question, because if you have that reaction on a personal level with people, or even through groups in a community or statewide, why don't you have that same kind of response from the press, the media? There was an interesting quote in the film, one of the guys speaking at the conference, an investigative reporter, basically said, "My entire job is just looking over the public records and reporting the facts..."
Oh yes, Bob Fitrakis...
So if all this information is out there, and it's fairly well documented, and you're uncovering a lot of stuff that seems fairly obvious, why doesn't it get more press?
You know, I kind of think that goes into the same category as why didn't the press ask more questions in the build-up to the war in Iraq. Instead we'll report on it after we already went there. In a way it's like the conspiracy question, because I don't know that I have the magic answer. I just know they don't show up for this issue in general.
I'll tell you the pattern that I've seen. There was reporting on concerns, and it's in our film, about electronic voting before the 2004 election. There's a little part where we've got a report from Peter Jennings on there, there were some newspaper articles expressing concern about how these things can be hacked into and we should be worried. And these are in the mainstream. Now, they're spot articles; it's not like Watergate, where you follow the thread of stories. What was interesting was when the 2004 election was over, there were no stories, there was nothing. And that's what got me going more than anything. I felt like I was in some parallel universe. I'm ready to rock, I'm ready to look into this thing... and I'm in my favorite coffee shop, Fido, right down the street, and I'm seeing that there's nothing in the Tennessean and I think "well, okay, maybe it's just the Tennessean." So I buy a New York Times and there was nothing. And I remember my feeling, my words to myself were "Uh oh..." There was nothing, two days later, out there.
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.