You know, I think it's a weird thing. It's odd that we can have an election where somebody can get the most votes and they don't get elected. I just think it's kind of an antiquated system. I didn't put any time into it on the film; I think it's a different issue from what we talked about. But I think it's something we need to move away from.
Do you think that if there was a change, because there has been an ongoing grassroots movement to have that system changed, if that was overturned do you think that would have any positive effect on the things that you saw through your film? Do you think it would help anything or hurt anything, or are these completely separate issues?
I think I would mostly say I don't know. It feels like separate issues to me. I see the electoral college as more an issue of fairness, and maybe an issue of something that was set up a long time ago and maybe doesn't apply in contemporary society. But I don't necessarily see that doing that, other than the sense that we're focusing on elections and the process itself, that seems positive to me. Because it seems like that would very naturally shine attention on the whole system. So from that standpoint I think it would be good if there was a movement...
Well, let me frame it slightly differently. Because of the situation of the electoral college, where you can have these battleground states instead of just relying on the popular vote... so you strategically know, okay, we're going to have a situation here and here and we can plan for it...
Yeah, I mean it worries me, because it makes it from a political strategy standpoint. The political strategists kind of look at things and boil it down to, if I win these three states, I win the election. And that does bother me. I think the electoral college makes it much more of a strategic game, and how you target certain states, because [the rest of the states] are washouts. As a result, certain states don't get any attention. I've even heard recently that Obama is reconsidering his fifty-state plan. Just because it doesn't make sense. Certain states he's just not gonna win, so why put resources there? I think ultimately that ends up hurting those states that don't end up coming into play. And then they don't get visited by the candidates, and therefore they don't get a certain amount of attention.
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.