list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Uncounted_The_New_Math_of_American_Elections/362211/default.aspx Title: Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections
Year: 2007
Director: David Earnhardt
Plot: As the 2008 presidential elections draw near and disillusioned voters are still reeling from the election fraud scandals of 2004 and 2006, Emmy Award-winning filmmaker David Earnhardt takes a logical and factual look at just how easy it is to alter election results and undermine the integrity of the entire democratic process. By speaking with a series of renowned computer programmers, journalists, statisticians, and even seasoned election officials, chilling proof that the people may not be guiding the direction of our country after all. From the directives given to Florida programmer Clint Curtis to design software that would "flip" the votes to the other candidate to the troubles faced by Utah County Clerk Bruce Funk for daring to point out serious flaws in electronic voting machines, and the felony conviction of Californian Steve Heller for leaking secret documents about illegal transgressions made by a high profile voting machine company, this documentary aims to change the way everyday citizens view the voting process, and inspire voters to take an active role in mending our broken electoral system. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 24
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:30:48 GMTUncounted: The New Math of American Elections2007David EarnhardtAs the 2008 presidential elections draw near and disillusioned voters are still reeling from the election fraud scandals of 2004 and 2006, Emmy Award-winning filmmaker David Earnhardt takes a logical and factual look at just how easy it is to alter election results and undermine the integrity of the entire democratic process. By speaking with a series of renowned computer programmers, journalists, statisticians, and even seasoned election officials, chilling proof that the people may not be guiding the direction of our country after all. From the directives given to Florida programmer Clint Curtis to design software that would "flip" the votes to the other candidate to the troubles faced by Utah County Clerk Bruce Funk for daring to point out serious flaws in electronic voting machines, and the felony conviction of Californian Steve Heller for leaking secret documents about illegal transgressions made by a high profile voting machine company, this documentary aims to change the way everyday citizens view the voting process, and inspire voters to take an active role in mending our broken electoral system. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide24Tag Target (>10)3613http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s362211.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Uncounted_The_New_Math_of_American_Elections/362211/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/5/29/42453.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 5/29/2009 11:35:23 AM
Body: Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections explores the many different ways in which elections in the United States can and supposedly have been manipulated and sometimes flat out directly altered or falsified. There are several different methods explored here. 1. Polling locations in areas that are known to vote in a certain way (such as lower class or African American communities more often swaying towards Democrats over Republicans) are given fewer machines and resources, or sometimes even have physical obstacles that keep people from being able to get in to vote or forcing them to wait so long that many give up and go home. 2. Laws and procedures are miscommunicated to poll workers leading them to turn away people who have a right to vote based on erroneous criteria. Or causing them to vote "provisionally" which are votes that area apparently often never counted. Again this is usually only done in areas known to vote in a certain way. 3. New electronic voting machines are not secure or reliable. The software used is not only open to tampering to allow people with relatively minimal hacking skills to change the data. Not only that, but there is evidence that the makers of the machines themselves implemented these features specifically in order to alter the votes themselves because of their political views and connections. Diebold is the company most often referenced here. These are the three major ways I remember them discussing, but there were several others. It's clear that most of the arguments are that the perpetrators of these crimes have been Republicans. However it is often made clear that these crimes could be committed by any political party, and the issue itself should be a fundamental concern to all Americans who support our system of government. For the idea that our entire government is based on elected officials, or people appointed by elected officials then being able to trust the voting system 100% is crucial. If you believe many of the people in this film, then it is clear from statistics that the last several elections have been greatly falsified. Votes have been flat out changed or incorrectly recorded. There are a lot of passionate people here, but they also point out how such an important issue is so ignored by mainstream media. Maybe to question our voting system seems tabu or somehow almost into the realm of zany conspiracy theory stuff. To question that the United States of America, a beacon of democracy has a deeply flawed and manipulated voting system is not something many people want to hear. Maybe because some people feel like it's the only real right or say they have, and if they can't trust that system, then they don't even have any say to fix it. I can understand that feeling. I felt kind of powerless watching this documentary. I felt good that there were people out there thinking about this issue and trying to fight for my rights. And the documentary is rare in that it presents a social problem but then actually gives ways in which viewers can positively respond (at least I think it was this movie that did that...). I don't know if this was much of a review of the film. More like a summary or recap. But if this sounds like something you'd be interested in hearing more about, and you probably should, then by all means watch this film. Rating: 8/10
]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 15:35:23 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog5/29/2009 11:35:23 AMUncounted: The New Math of American Elections explores the many different ways in which elections in the United States can and supposedly have been manipulated and sometimes flat out directly altered or falsified. There are several different methods explored here. 1. Polling locations in areas that are known to vote in a certain way (such as lower class or African American communities more often swaying towards Democrats over Republicans) are given fewer machines and resources, or sometimes even have physical obstacles that keep people from being able to get in to vote or forcing them to wait so long that many give up and go home. 2. Laws and procedures are miscommunicated to poll workers leading them to turn away people who have a right to vote based on erroneous criteria. Or causing them to vote "provisionally" which are votes that area apparently often never counted. Again this is usually only done in areas known to vote in a certain way. 3. New electronic voting machines are not secure or reliable. The software used is not only open to tampering to allow people with relatively minimal hacking skills to change the data. Not only that, but there is evidence that the makers of the machines themselves implemented these features specifically in order to alter the votes themselves because of their political views and connections. Diebold is the company most often referenced here. These are the three major ways I remember them discussing, but there were several others. It's clear that most of the arguments are that the perpetrators of these crimes have been Republicans. However it is often made clear that these crimes could be committed by any political party, and the issue itself should be a fundamental concern to all Americans who support our system of government. For the idea that our entire government is based on elected officials, or people appointed by elected officials then being able to trust the voting system 100% is crucial. If you believe many of the people in this film, then it is clear from statistics that the last several elections have been greatly falsified. Votes have been flat out changed or incorrectly recorded. There are a lot of passionate people here, but they also point out how such an important issue is so ignored by mainstream media. Maybe to question our voting system seems tabu or somehow almost into the realm of zany conspiracy theory stuff. To question that the United States of America, a beacon of democracy has a deeply flawed and manipulated voting system is not something many people want to hear. Maybe because some people feel like it's the only real right or say they have, and if they can't trust that system, then they don't even have any say to fix it. I can understand that feeling. I felt kind of powerless watching this documentary. I felt good that there were people out there thinking about this issue and trying to fight for my rights. And the documentary is rare in that it presents a social problem but then actually gives ways in which viewers can positively respond (at least I think it was this movie that did that...). I don't know if this was much of a review of the film. More like a summary or recap. But if this sounds like something you'd be interested in hearing more about, and you probably should, then by all means watch this film. Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/jscott/archive/2008/11/14/37305.aspx Post By: JScott
Post To: JScott Blog
Post Date: 11/14/2008 12:27:00 PM
Body: Since 2000 the United States has been up-in-arms about its voting. 2000 was the year of Bush/Gore and the infamous Florida chad - who is not some guy you hung out with on Spring Break. WOO SPRING BREAK!! Director David Earnhardt challenges the electronic voting system and makes some incredible valid points. For one why a company (Diebold) would make a voting machine that gives out no receipts and isn't auditable when they are a company that produces most of the world's ATM machines thats only job is to print out reciepts and be auditable. While the evidence provided to us tends to lean towards showing us the Republican party gained more from the alleged voter fraud the documetary does claim to be non-partisan. Even as a liberal I found this documentary to be too one sided and only focusing on what the Republicans are rumored to be doing rather than spending too much time talking about ACORN and other hot topics of the day. It is difficult to judge this film on what is shown. I do find it making a convincing argument especially when a programmer testifies that he is the one who developed the software to switch votes (on purpose) and that he was paid by a man who works in the Florida State Government and has ties to the Bushes. Following some of the information provided in the film led me to Blackboxvoting.org which is run by one of the talking heads in the documentary Bev Harris. Director David Earnhardt is a frequent contributor on that site. Bev Harris and Mr Earnhardt also frequent the Alex Jones show. Mr Jones is the leading proponent of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and blames Bush and a secret shadow government (New World Order - not led by Hogan). Many of thoes claims seem far fetched to me so I wonder what their agenda is in this documentary. Again on the surface it does a good job on convincing you of all this wrong doing which I think is great. Get awareness out there so we can see it coming but I wonder how much of it is actual fact and how much of it is like the jump-to-conclusions mat. Basically what I took away from this is that the TruVote system is the best available (if we go electronic, it allows you to check on your vote online and prints out a hard ballot to be hand counted if needed) and if not we need to stick with paper ballots. I know in 2 and 4 years I will be volunteering at the local polling presinct just to be sure there is nothing shady going on. This documentary is propaganda and much of it may be true but I would urge you to do your own research and get involved in the political process.
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:27:00 GMTJScottJScott Blog11/14/2008 12:27:00 PMSince 2000 the United States has been up-in-arms about its voting. 2000 was the year of Bush/Gore and the infamous Florida chad - who is not some guy you hung out with on Spring Break. WOO SPRING BREAK!! Director David Earnhardt challenges the electronic voting system and makes some incredible valid points. For one why a company (Diebold) would make a voting machine that gives out no receipts and isn't auditable when they are a company that produces most of the world's ATM machines thats only job is to print out reciepts and be auditable. While the evidence provided to us tends to lean towards showing us the Republican party gained more from the alleged voter fraud the documetary does claim to be non-partisan. Even as a liberal I found this documentary to be too one sided and only focusing on what the Republicans are rumored to be doing rather than spending too much time talking about ACORN and other hot topics of the day. It is difficult to judge this film on what is shown. I do find it making a convincing argument especially when a programmer testifies that he is the one who developed the software to switch votes (on purpose) and that he was paid by a man who works in the Florida State Government and has ties to the Bushes. Following some of the information provided in the film led me to Blackboxvoting.org which is run by one of the talking heads in the documentary Bev Harris. Director David Earnhardt is a frequent contributor on that site. Bev Harris and Mr Earnhardt also frequent the Alex Jones show. Mr Jones is the leading proponent of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and blames Bush and a secret shadow government (New World Order - not led by Hogan). Many of thoes claims seem far fetched to me so I wonder what their agenda is in this documentary. Again on the surface it does a good job on convincing you of all this wrong doing which I think is great. Get awareness out there so we can see it coming but I wonder how much of it is actual fact and how much of it is like the jump-to-conclusions mat. Basically what I took away from this is that the TruVote system is the best available (if we go electronic, it allows you to check on your vote online and prints out a hard ballot to be hand counted if needed) and if not we need to stick with paper ballots. I know in 2 and 4 years I will be volunteering at the local polling presinct just to be sure there is nothing shady going on. This documentary is propaganda and much of it may be true but I would urge you to do your own research and get involved in the political process. http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2008/11/14/37301.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 11/14/2008 11:57:19 AM
Body: *** Stars out of 5 Directed by: David Earnhardt Running Time: 80 minutes Rated: NR Released: 2007 Language: English Digital Dirt - Zion I and The Grouch Song: Zion I and The Grouch – Digital Dirt I try to choose a song that I am reminded of while watching the movie. I had several in mind before this one came to mind. I really wanted to use Guttermouth’s Gold because of the chorus: they say this is the land of the free to me that means I have the liberty to sit for my rights cuz I don't care to do what everybody else would do I'm fine right here I voted once but I didn't win I'll never vote again I almost went with Operation Ivy’s Knowledge – “All I know is that I don’t know nothing.” But I settled on some good hip-hop from the Bay Area. Enjoy!! Review: Documentaries always seem to be the hardest for me to review. One reason is simply that I don’t really care to watch many of them in the first place. Add to that the fact that many of the cinematic elements that I like to analyze such as cinematography and acting are not really factors in documentaries. Also, many docs are very politically motivated. It is much harder to review a film as a film if you staunchly agree or disagree with the slant that is being put forward by the director. But enough of my complaining, I only will say that I do my best to inform the reader of the pros and cons of the film they are potentially going to watch. I usually do a good job of keeping any political leaning I have at a safe distance. With all of that being said, I do need to inform you that I see tend to see the world through a pair of skeptical eyes. These are the same eyes that I watched the film through; a film that happens to be based largely on a grand conspiracy theory. This documentary was much more of an exposé than an exploration. What I mean by that is that I never really felt as though they were trying to get to the bottom of anything. I felt much more that this was made by someone with a problem and a soap-box. This film is completely void of any counter-point whatsoever. I think you lend a lot of credibility to your claim just by inserting a dissenting opinion once and a while. Even if that opinion is weak, the audience should be given a chance to hear it. One glaring problem I had with this movie was how easily it should be to find out if the booths were designed to swap or miscount votes. Many times throughout the doc, the electronic booths are referred to as “not auditable.” While at the same time, during the Clint Curtis interview, he repeatedly states that it is impossible to make this source code hidden. This code is precisely what makes the equipment always auditable. The point he is making (correctly) is that the machine can only do what it is programmed to do. This program (code) contains the key as to what it is actually doing. At this point of the film, I am watching it through the eyes of someone that writes code for government contracts. At one point of the film there is a shot of a county warehouse full of these machines. All the county really would need to do is refuse payment to Diebold until the code was inspected and approved by a third party software guru. It wouldn’t take a genius to read this code, test it and make an assessment as to what the booths are actually doing. Something else I really don’t care for in documentaries is when someone is being interviewed and the camera cuts way too often. It seemed as though throughout some of these interviews, the shots were only lasting about two or three seconds on average. I know many documentarians will cut out the interviewer’s questions but in this case, it seemed a bit too spliced together. I find that this cuts into the integrity of the film. I will conclude with my somewhat reluctant recommendation for this film. In spite of its faults, I did take something away from this film. I do agree that there is a serious problem with the electronic machines and we, as the ultimate consumer should either demand a paper ballot backup or go back to paper all together.
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:57:19 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog11/14/2008 11:57:19 AM *** Stars out of 5 Directed by: David Earnhardt Running Time: 80 minutes Rated: NR Released: 2007 Language: English Digital Dirt - Zion I and The Grouch Song: Zion I and The Grouch – Digital Dirt I try to choose a song that I am reminded of while watching the movie. I had several in mind before this one came to mind. I really wanted to use Guttermouth’s Gold because of the chorus: they say this is the land of the free to me that means I have the liberty to sit for my rights cuz I don't care to do what everybody else would do I'm fine right here I voted once but I didn't win I'll never vote again I almost went with Operation Ivy’s Knowledge – “All I know is that I don’t know nothing.” But I settled on some good hip-hop from the Bay Area. Enjoy!! Review: Documentaries always seem to be the hardest for me to review. One reason is simply that I don’t really care to watch many of them in the first place. Add to that the fact that many of the cinematic elements that I like to analyze such as cinematography and acting are not really factors in documentaries. Also, many docs are very politically motivated. It is much harder to review a film as a film if you staunchly agree or disagree with the slant that is being put forward by the director. But enough of my complaining, I only will say that I do my best to inform the reader of the pros and cons of the film they are potentially going to watch. I usually do a good job of keeping any political leaning I have at a safe distance. With all of that being said, I do need to inform you that I see tend to see the world through a pair of skeptical eyes. These are the same eyes that I watched the film through; a film that happens to be based largely on a grand conspiracy theory. This documentary was much more of an exposé than an exploration. What I mean by that is that I never really felt as though they were trying to get to the bottom of anything. I felt much more that this was made by someone with a problem and a soap-box. This film is completely void of any counter-point whatsoever. I think you lend a lot of credibility to your claim just by inserting a dissenting opinion once and a while. Even if that opinion is weak, the audience should be given a chance to hear it. One glaring problem I had with this movie was how easily it should be to find out if the booths were designed to swap or miscount votes. Many times throughout the doc, the electronic booths are referred to as “not auditable.” While at the same time, during the Clint Curtis interview, he repeatedly states that it is impossible to make this source code hidden. This code is precisely what makes the equipment always auditable. The point he is making (correctly) is that the machine can only do what it is programmed to do. This program (code) contains the key as to what it is actually doing. At this point of the film, I am watching it through the eyes of someone that writes code for government contracts. At one point of the film there is a shot of a county warehouse full of these machines. All the county really would need to do is refuse payment to Diebold until the code was inspected and approved by a third party software guru. It wouldn’t take a genius to read this code, test it and make an assessment as to what the booths are actually doing. Something else I really don’t care for in documentaries is when someone is being interviewed and the camera cuts way too often. It seemed as though throughout some of these interviews, the shots were only lasting about two or three seconds on average. I know many documentarians will cut out the interviewer’s questions but in this case, it seemed a bit too spliced together. I find that this cuts into the integrity of the film. I will conclude with my somewhat reluctant recommendation for this film. In spite of its faults, I did take something away from this film. I do agree that there is a serious problem with the electronic machines and we, as the ultimate consumer should either demand a paper ballot backup or go back to paper all together. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/10/29/36780.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 10/29/2008 8:44:51 PM
Body: I review films professionally for a small paper that is situated in a primarily liberal oasis adrift in a very conservative county, In my reviews, I keep my politics close to the vest (but, honestly, anyone who reads between the lines can easily see my stripes). In private, though, I consume documentaries such as “Uncounted.” “Outfoxed,” “Iraq for Sale,” “Uncovered” and “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices” have captivated me, as I look forward to each new film released by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films company. In a political year such as this one, I digest far too much information than my recommended daily allowance suggests, but I turn into a news junkie, compulsively checking the net for breaking stories, impulsively signing up, volunteering and donating to causes (I'll see you at the voting booth on election day!), and filling my mp3 to the brim with political talk shows of the day (full confession: I shed a tear of happiness when my favorite radio pundit Rachael Maddow landed her own gig on MSNBC after Keith Olbermann). As compulsive as I am, I still manage to keep reality in check when I view these films, and wear my best reporter's cap when disseminating the information coming at me (that's what a Journalism degree does to you). Two years back, I stumbled upon a a lengthy piece from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?”, published in Rolling Stone ( a link to the piece is found here). It's a lengthy but essential piece, especially for anyone who is concerned about the current political climate in this country. His follow-up piece “Block the Vote” was released this week and is a worthy successor. I mention all this because I feel that it is an integral companion piece for “Uncounted.” The David Earnhardt-directed documentary covers the same turf as the Kennedy piece on the 2004 presidential election and the numerous inconsistencies in the voting practices in this country's more economically depressed and minority areas. Yes, the film leans far to the left, but then when is the last time that you have heard of election fraud coming out in favor of the Democrats? (Don't throw me that tired ACORN voter “registration” rubbish either, for that is completely different than “election” fraud). For the politically strident, the film is not an easy watch, and for those who suffer from malaise at the thought of voting, this could cause you to recoil on your couch until November 5, when it's way over. But if you are even the least bit concerned about just what happens after that button is pushed or that level is pulled, “Uncounted” will cause much discomfort and maybe, just maybe, motivate you to leaf material that will help you get involved and, to quote Mahatma Gandhi, help “be the change we want to see in the world.” With the election only days away, “Uncounted” could not be more timely viewing and I promise it will give you more chills than any horror movie marathon in your house ever could.
]]>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:44:51 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog10/29/2008 8:44:51 PMI review films professionally for a small paper that is situated in a primarily liberal oasis adrift in a very conservative county, In my reviews, I keep my politics close to the vest (but, honestly, anyone who reads between the lines can easily see my stripes). In private, though, I consume documentaries such as “Uncounted.” “Outfoxed,” “Iraq for Sale,” “Uncovered” and “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices” have captivated me, as I look forward to each new film released by Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films company. In a political year such as this one, I digest far too much information than my recommended daily allowance suggests, but I turn into a news junkie, compulsively checking the net for breaking stories, impulsively signing up, volunteering and donating to causes (I'll see you at the voting booth on election day!), and filling my mp3 to the brim with political talk shows of the day (full confession: I shed a tear of happiness when my favorite radio pundit Rachael Maddow landed her own gig on MSNBC after Keith Olbermann). As compulsive as I am, I still manage to keep reality in check when I view these films, and wear my best reporter's cap when disseminating the information coming at me (that's what a Journalism degree does to you). Two years back, I stumbled upon a a lengthy piece from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?”, published in Rolling Stone ( a link to the piece is found here). It's a lengthy but essential piece, especially for anyone who is concerned about the current political climate in this country. His follow-up piece “Block the Vote” was released this week and is a worthy successor. I mention all this because I feel that it is an integral companion piece for “Uncounted.” The David Earnhardt-directed documentary covers the same turf as the Kennedy piece on the 2004 presidential election and the numerous inconsistencies in the voting practices in this country's more economically depressed and minority areas. Yes, the film leans far to the left, but then when is the last time that you have heard of election fraud coming out in favor of the Democrats? (Don't throw me that tired ACORN voter “registration” rubbish either, for that is completely different than “election” fraud). For the politically strident, the film is not an easy watch, and for those who suffer from malaise at the thought of voting, this could cause you to recoil on your couch until November 5, when it's way over. But if you are even the least bit concerned about just what happens after that button is pushed or that level is pulled, “Uncounted” will cause much discomfort and maybe, just maybe, motivate you to leaf material that will help you get involved and, to quote Mahatma Gandhi, help “be the change we want to see in the world.” With the election only days away, “Uncounted” could not be more timely viewing and I promise it will give you more chills than any horror movie marathon in your house ever could. http://www.spout.com/blogs/joem18b/archive/2008/10/24/36650.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 10/24/2008 2:09:27 PM
Body: Suppose that you're a normal, everyday moviewatcher. You've seen a few documentaries and now I come to you and ask you to make a documentary your own self. "Who, me?" you say, "What do I know about making a documentary?" "Just give it a try," I say, and I say, "David Earnhardt did it. This is his first stab at making one. So, your movie will be about voter fraud, like his was. Here's a camera. Get out there and record some interviews with the sort of folks that you see shopping every day down at the Save N' Go Supermarket. That is, turn up some interesting folks - folks maybe just a tad peculiar in their views and in their aspect. Then Wiki some voter statistics and find some footage of voters standing in line and, I predict, you will make a movie very like Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections.Nothing wrong with that. The movie's karma is positive. It's impossible to take a step these days without tripping over an article on voter problems, so you probably won't learn anything new, but at the movie's conclusion, Earnhardt urges you to:1. Contact your representatives in congress.2. Say no to paperless voting machines.3. Volunteer to be a poll observer.4. Volunteer to be a poll worker.5. Share the film with others.6. Dialog with others on the subject of voter fraud.7. Write letters to the editor.8. Lobby for change.Good and reasonable urgings for these, our parlous times.The end credits also serve as a bibliography.Thus endth my review of the documentary Uncounted.But now listen. Who do you want to govern you in difficult times? A guy who can't win an election even when he garners a majority of the legitimate votes cast, or a guy who can turn a handful of votes into a freaking landslide?There is incontrovertible evidence in the Lascaux cave drawings that before one of the annual cave elections, the Neanderthals stole all the voting clubs and as a result soundly thrashed the Cro-Magnons. The Neanderthal who was thus elected started some unnecessary wars, flubbed local aid after the neighborhood volcano erupted, and caused the cave-dwelling population in general to seriously rethink the whole business of voting-with-clubs technology going forward.Full disclosure: when I was in the fourth grade, the student who was to do the voice and operate the strings for the Peter Pan puppet in the big school puppet show was to be determined by student vote at an audition. Those of us trying out for the role stood behind a blanket rigged as a screen. We were to read out lines from the Peter Pan script when our number was called. The students on the other side of the blanket, once they heard all of us read, were to vote on the voice that would be Peter Pan. Before we began, I went to the end of the blanket and wrote down my number on a piece of paper and surreptitiously flashed it around the end of the curtain. We then did the readings. Turns out that the voting students didn't like me. They all voted against the number that I had flashed. However, by dumb luck I had flashed the wrong number and won the vote when all the haters raised their hands for me by mistake. My point here is that vote rigging is rife! Whatever it takes to pull Peter Pan's strings!Now let's suppose that the Republicans stole the '04 presidential election by flipping 3 million votes, as some claim that they did. This still means that almost half the voters in the U.S. cast their ballots to reelect Bush, after four years of his presidency - after the war, Katrina, the gutting of the EPA, so forth. Can we make an argument here that fraud or no fraud, fix or no fix, if almost half the country voted for Bush in '04, then the country as a whole deserved what it got throughout his second term? Can we make an argument that one in three citizens in America still likes George Bush and so the country richly deserves what's coming up next as well?And by the way, thought experiment: If Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/ll today instead of four years ago, how would the movie be different? Bush reading about the bunny rabbit, Katrina, the start of the war - all far in the past now. What the frack has Bush been doing the last four years that would still make Moore's movie Cannes-Golden-Palm-worthy? If you see Moore, please ask him for me and email me his response at this address. Thank you.If you do go ahead and make a documentary about voter fraud (votes don't kill people, voters kill people), and if you are of a conservative stripe, the film will probably focus on voter registration fraud, which according to McCain and Palin threatens to convert the U.S. into a Soviet-style state governed by the spawn of Satan. ACORN, formerly thought of as a minor civil-rights organization, turns out to be an outfit structured along the lines of SPECTRE. If you are of a liberal stripe, you'll want to warn all black voters that their ballots have already been cast by the central Republican Diebold computer, and that if they actually show up at the polls, they'll probably be pulled down by Sheriff Crawford's German Shepherds and dragged off to the county Gulag out beyond the settling ponds.I mean, if I'm standing there in front of an outsourced computerized voting machine, I'm accepting the fact up front that anything might happen to my vote. The computer might turn it upside down, or right to left, or black to white, or flip it, or delete it, or recycle it, or email it to Kirghizistan, or use it later to have me tracked down like a dog. Far from losing my vote, the computer may never forget or forgive me for it. I've seen Idiocracy. Twice. Dumb is stronger than smart and I've got history on my side to prove it. Last but not least, there might be a little person hiding inside that machine, operating its lights and whistles. Capture that reality in your film.And put in gerrymandering. For a nice touch, shoot the exteriors in Gerry, New York (on Route 60).And while I'm thinking about it, what is it with all those names on the ballots? Why am I voting for a damn judge? And how was I to know that my random selection of school-board members last year would cause natural selection to be tossed out of the grade-school curriculum in favor of that divine Providence who misengineered my lower spinal disks? And what is a county adjuster anyway? Explain to the viewer the steps that should be taken to clean up these ballots. Put all these jobs up for sale.Also, here's a hint for you, novice documentary-maker: rather than focusing on the sins of one political party or the other, go find an election that pits two unscrupulous win-at-any-cost types against each other. Gather your information during their campaigning and electioneering, as the attendant payouts and other tricks and frauds and jackanaperies ensue. Work quietly so as to avoid being shot or otherwise disappeared while doing so - and then when the election is over, don't fail to interview several of the folks who voted a lot - do they plan to spend their money or save it? Will they have a place in the new administration? Etc. General guidelines:1. Don't make the movie in your home state or any state that borders on your home state, to minimize blowback when you screen it.2. Never admit what you're doing to the local populace. Your great-uncle Jeter on his deathbed begged you to come to Cletisville to visit and record memories of the town and its old - very old - family memories. Hence your camera and the interviews.3. Adopt a rural accent.4. Wear only togs from Walmart.5. Buy drinks all around, frequently.6. Never mention the election, but it's ok to say, "So who is this Bubba Prendergast with his picture up on posters all over town?"7. Go to church.8. Don't talk to anyone with a dark skin, foreign accent, or Asian eyes.9. Keep your own eyes peeled on election day for ballot stuffing, vote buying, counterfeit votes, disappearing ballots and ballot boxes, scaring the voters, and murder.For a historical discussion of voter fraud, I refer you to Tracy Campbell's "Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition—1742-2004." For an in-depth examination of how to lose a local election and then come back and win the next one, if you know what I mean, I recommend "The Path to Power (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 1)," by Robert A. Caro. It can't be beat. For Diebold (not Livebold), Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws.Contest: What's the craziest conspiricy theory you've heard regarding the Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, or McCain/Obama election? Prize: Three votes in this year's special coroner's election in the town of Pigliver, Texas. (You have to cast one vote in the morning, one vote in the afternoon, and one vote in the evening, using the names Pardee, Pardeux, and Pardoo, respectively.)Movie recommendation: When it's all over, go watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to restore a little bit of your faith in the country.Let me conclude this review like any good politician concludes his speeches, whether currently indicted or not: God bless America.
]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:09:27 GMTjoem18bjoem18b Blog10/24/2008 2:09:27 PMSuppose that you're a normal, everyday moviewatcher. You've seen a few documentaries and now I come to you and ask you to make a documentary your own self. "Who, me?" you say, "What do I know about making a documentary?" "Just give it a try," I say, and I say, "David Earnhardt did it. This is his first stab at making one. So, your movie will be about voter fraud, like his was. Here's a camera. Get out there and record some interviews with the sort of folks that you see shopping every day down at the Save N' Go Supermarket. That is, turn up some interesting folks - folks maybe just a tad peculiar in their views and in their aspect. Then Wiki some voter statistics and find some footage of voters standing in line and, I predict, you will make a movie very like Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections.Nothing wrong with that. The movie's karma is positive. It's impossible to take a step these days without tripping over an article on voter problems, so you probably won't learn anything new, but at the movie's conclusion, Earnhardt urges you to:1. Contact your representatives in congress.2. Say no to paperless voting machines.3. Volunteer to be a poll observer.4. Volunteer to be a poll worker.5. Share the film with others.6. Dialog with others on the subject of voter fraud.7. Write letters to the editor.8. Lobby for change.Good and reasonable urgings for these, our parlous times.The end credits also serve as a bibliography.Thus endth my review of the documentary Uncounted.But now listen. Who do you want to govern you in difficult times? A guy who can't win an election even when he garners a majority of the legitimate votes cast, or a guy who can turn a handful of votes into a freaking landslide?There is incontrovertible evidence in the Lascaux cave drawings that before one of the annual cave elections, the Neanderthals stole all the voting clubs and as a result soundly thrashed the Cro-Magnons. The Neanderthal who was thus elected started some unnecessary wars, flubbed local aid after the neighborhood volcano erupted, and caused the cave-dwelling population in general to seriously rethink the whole business of voting-with-clubs technology going forward.Full disclosure: when I was in the fourth grade, the student who was to do the voice and operate the strings for the Peter Pan puppet in the big school puppet show was to be determined by student vote at an audition. Those of us trying out for the role stood behind a blanket rigged as a screen. We were to read out lines from the Peter Pan script when our number was called. The students on the other side of the blanket, once they heard all of us read, were to vote on the voice that would be Peter Pan. Before we began, I went to the end of the blanket and wrote down my number on a piece of paper and surreptitiously flashed it around the end of the curtain. We then did the readings. Turns out that the voting students didn't like me. They all voted against the number that I had flashed. However, by dumb luck I had flashed the wrong number and won the vote when all the haters raised their hands for me by mistake. My point here is that vote rigging is rife! Whatever it takes to pull Peter Pan's strings!Now let's suppose that the Republicans stole the '04 presidential election by flipping 3 million votes, as some claim that they did. This still means that almost half the voters in the U.S. cast their ballots to reelect Bush, after four years of his presidency - after the war, Katrina, the gutting of the EPA, so forth. Can we make an argument here that fraud or no fraud, fix or no fix, if almost half the country voted for Bush in '04, then the country as a whole deserved what it got throughout his second term? Can we make an argument that one in three citizens in America still likes George Bush and so the country richly deserves what's coming up next as well?And by the way, thought experiment: If Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/ll today instead of four years ago, how would the movie be different? Bush reading about the bunny rabbit, Katrina, the start of the war - all far in the past now. What the frack has Bush been doing the last four years that would still make Moore's movie Cannes-Golden-Palm-worthy? If you see Moore, please ask him for me and email me his response at this address. Thank you.If you do go ahead and make a documentary about voter fraud (votes don't kill people, voters kill people), and if you are of a conservative stripe, the film will probably focus on voter registration fraud, which according to McCain and Palin threatens to convert the U.S. into a Soviet-style state governed by the spawn of Satan. ACORN, formerly thought of as a minor civil-rights organization, turns out to be an outfit structured along the lines of SPECTRE. If you are of a liberal stripe, you'll want to warn all black voters that their ballots have already been cast by the central Republican Diebold computer, and that if they actually show up at the polls, they'll probably be pulled down by Sheriff Crawford's German Shepherds and dragged off to the county Gulag out beyond the settling ponds.I mean, if I'm standing there in front of an outsourced computerized voting machine, I'm accepting the fact up front that anything might happen to my vote. The computer might turn it upside down, or right to left, or black to white, or flip it, or delete it, or recycle it, or email it to Kirghizistan, or use it later to have me tracked down like a dog. Far from losing my vote, the computer may never forget or forgive me for it. I've seen Idiocracy. Twice. Dumb is stronger than smart and I've got history on my side to prove it. Last but not least, there might be a little person hiding inside that machine, operating its lights and whistles. Capture that reality in your film.And put in gerrymandering. For a nice touch, shoot the exteriors in Gerry, New York (on Route 60).And while I'm thinking about it, what is it with all those names on the ballots? Why am I voting for a damn judge? And how was I to know that my random selection of school-board members last year would cause natural selection to be tossed out of the grade-school curriculum in favor of that divine Providence who misengineered my lower spinal disks? And what is a county adjuster anyway? Explain to the viewer the steps that should be taken to clean up these ballots. Put all these jobs up for sale.Also, here's a hint for you, novice documentary-maker: rather than focusing on the sins of one political party or the other, go find an election that pits two unscrupulous win-at-any-cost types against each other. Gather your information during their campaigning and electioneering, as the attendant payouts and other tricks and frauds and jackanaperies ensue. Work quietly so as to avoid being shot or otherwise disappeared while doing so - and then when the election is over, don't fail to interview several of the folks who voted a lot - do they plan to spend their money or save it? Will they have a place in the new administration? Etc. General guidelines:1. Don't make the movie in your home state or any state that borders on your home state, to minimize blowback when you screen it.2. Never admit what you're doing to the local populace. Your great-uncle Jeter on his deathbed begged you to come to Cletisville to visit and record memories of the town and its old - very old - family memories. Hence your camera and the interviews.3. Adopt a rural accent.4. Wear only togs from Walmart.5. Buy drinks all around, frequently.6. Never mention the election, but it's ok to say, "So who is this Bubba Prendergast with his picture up on posters all over town?"7. Go to church.8. Don't talk to anyone with a dark skin, foreign accent, or Asian eyes.9. Keep your own eyes peeled on election day for ballot stuffing, vote buying, counterfeit votes, disappearing ballots and ballot boxes, scaring the voters, and murder.For a historical discussion of voter fraud, I refer you to Tracy Campbell's "Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition—1742-2004." For an in-depth examination of how to lose a local election and then come back and win the next one, if you know what I mean, I recommend "The Path to Power (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 1)," by Robert A. Caro. It can't be beat. For Diebold (not Livebold), Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws.Contest: What's the craziest conspiricy theory you've heard regarding the Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, or McCain/Obama election? Prize: Three votes in this year's special coroner's election in the town of Pigliver, Texas. (You have to cast one vote in the morning, one vote in the afternoon, and one vote in the evening, using the names Pardee, Pardeux, and Pardoo, respectively.)Movie recommendation: When it's all over, go watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to restore a little bit of your faith in the country.Let me conclude this review like any good politician concludes his speeches, whether currently indicted or not: God bless America. http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/10/24/36643.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 10/24/2008 12:46:54 PM
Body: "No one has yet explained to my satisfaction the difference between a conspiracy and a long range business plan." -Teresa Hommel Uncounted, a documentary by David Earnhardt about the deeply flawed and easily maleable American electoral process, is a difficult film to review. Especially on the eve of such a noteworthy -- and ultimately disheartening and fatiguing -- presidential election, any analysis of the film is likely to degrade into not merely a discussion of its thesis but an impassioned diatribe on the sorry state of our system politic. But given that this is essentially the point of the film, I will press on. Focusing primarily on the 2004 and, to a lesser extent, the 2000 presidential elections, Uncounted paints a harrowing portrait of a deeply corrupt system fueled by partisan interests, unaccountability, clandestine operations, and pernicious manipulation. That the mainstream media largely ignores this issue and the American public is for the most part complacent speaks just as poorly of us as it does the politicians who benefit. The film's primary target is the voting machine itself. Electronic voting has been viewed with some degree of skepticism since it was introduced, and subsequent elections have done nothing to asuage the doubtful. Firstly, there is the matter of machine failure. Just like any other computerized system, voting machines are prone to crash, lose information, or hiccup in any other number of ways, and have with an alarming frequency. Additionally, the security on voting machines isn't nearly as comprehensive as that of even a home video game system like XBox or Playstation 3 leaving them susceptible to tampering by even a novice programmer. Machines can be -- and have been -- programmed to invert, multiply, discard, or otherwise manipulate vote totals. Even without touching the machine itself, a power outage could prevent voters from participating or it could lose all of the votes already tabulated. Most of these problems could be addressed by instituting a paper receipt which the voter would verify and then deposit into a lockbox. The hard copies could be counted to verify the electronic counts should they be lost or contested. After all, Diebold, the leading manufacturer of electronic voting machines, has designed all of their ATM machines to produce a similar receipt. Yet the only person to actively spearhead a campaign to install this safety feature was Athan Gibbs, whose company TruVote closed its doors when Gibbs was killed in an automobile accident just as his invention was gaining momentum. That any kind of business is done without a paper trail, especially something as significant as electing the president, is ludicrous in this day and age; there is no reason to oppose these steps unless you have been manipulating the system to your advantage. The film goes on to explain Diebold's partisan ties and lawsuit for illegally tinkering with their machines. It also highlights some of the greater discrepancies between exit polls and vote tallies that occurred throughout the country. What it doesn't address, however, is the electoral college itself, an equally flawed system in dire need of retooling or -- if we are to buy in to the sentiment that every vote counts -- of retirement. While this helps the film maintain focus and not overreach, it does present only part of the problem. The film also focuses on the human aspect just enough to temper its facts and statistics, which is wise since so much of its statistics are based upon public opinion, intent, and awareness. It is also very careful to not present a liberal bias; although any viewer would likely deduce that Uncounted was produced by leftward minds, the film is conscientious to maintain that it seeks accountability on behalf of the voting public rather than a particular party. It is however unlikely that anyone watching this film isn't already aware of the conditions it illustrates and does tend in that regard to fall into the trap of many political or message documentaries of preaching to the converted. This shouldn't make its points any less valid, and one can only hope that as many people as possible see the film and are made aware of the capricious disregard with which American democracy all too frequently regards their voices.
]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:46:54 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog10/24/2008 12:46:54 PM"No one has yet explained to my satisfaction the difference between a conspiracy and a long range business plan." -Teresa Hommel Uncounted, a documentary by David Earnhardt about the deeply flawed and easily maleable American electoral process, is a difficult film to review. Especially on the eve of such a noteworthy -- and ultimately disheartening and fatiguing -- presidential election, any analysis of the film is likely to degrade into not merely a discussion of its thesis but an impassioned diatribe on the sorry state of our system politic. But given that this is essentially the point of the film, I will press on. Focusing primarily on the 2004 and, to a lesser extent, the 2000 presidential elections, Uncounted paints a harrowing portrait of a deeply corrupt system fueled by partisan interests, unaccountability, clandestine operations, and pernicious manipulation. That the mainstream media largely ignores this issue and the American public is for the most part complacent speaks just as poorly of us as it does the politicians who benefit. The film's primary target is the voting machine itself. Electronic voting has been viewed with some degree of skepticism since it was introduced, and subsequent elections have done nothing to asuage the doubtful. Firstly, there is the matter of machine failure. Just like any other computerized system, voting machines are prone to crash, lose information, or hiccup in any other number of ways, and have with an alarming frequency. Additionally, the security on voting machines isn't nearly as comprehensive as that of even a home video game system like XBox or Playstation 3 leaving them susceptible to tampering by even a novice programmer. Machines can be -- and have been -- programmed to invert, multiply, discard, or otherwise manipulate vote totals. Even without touching the machine itself, a power outage could prevent voters from participating or it could lose all of the votes already tabulated. Most of these problems could be addressed by instituting a paper receipt which the voter would verify and then deposit into a lockbox. The hard copies could be counted to verify the electronic counts should they be lost or contested. After all, Diebold, the leading manufacturer of electronic voting machines, has designed all of their ATM machines to produce a similar receipt. Yet the only person to actively spearhead a campaign to install this safety feature was Athan Gibbs, whose company TruVote closed its doors when Gibbs was killed in an automobile accident just as his invention was gaining momentum. That any kind of business is done without a paper trail, especially something as significant as electing the president, is ludicrous in this day and age; there is no reason to oppose these steps unless you have been manipulating the system to your advantage. The film goes on to explain Diebold's partisan ties and lawsuit for illegally tinkering with their machines. It also highlights some of the greater discrepancies between exit polls and vote tallies that occurred throughout the country. What it doesn't address, however, is the electoral college itself, an equally flawed system in dire need of retooling or -- if we are to buy in to the sentiment that every vote counts -- of retirement. While this helps the film maintain focus and not overreach, it does present only part of the problem. The film also focuses on the human aspect just enough to temper its facts and statistics, which is wise since so much of its statistics are based upon public opinion, intent, and awareness. It is also very careful to not present a liberal bias; although any viewer would likely deduce that Uncounted was produced by leftward minds, the film is conscientious to maintain that it seeks accountability on behalf of the voting public rather than a particular party. It is however unlikely that anyone watching this film isn't already aware of the conditions it illustrates and does tend in that regard to fall into the trap of many political or message documentaries of preaching to the converted. This shouldn't make its points any less valid, and one can only hope that as many people as possible see the film and are made aware of the capricious disregard with which American democracy all too frequently regards their voices. http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Mavens/Uncounted_the_New_Math_of_American_Elections/366/35087/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Spout Mavens
Post Date: 9/12/2008 4:12:00 PM
Body: I have 35 of these TOO!!! Uncounted From the back of the cover: Uncounted is an explosive new documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 and now looms as an unbridled threat to elections in 2008 and beyond. The controversial feature-length film by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt examines in factual, logical, and yet startling terms how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity across the U.S. Beyond increasing the public's awareness, UNCOUNTED inspires greater citizen involvement in fixing a broken electoral system. As we approach the decisive election of 2008, UNCOUNTED will change how you feel about the way votes are counted in America. Sounds exciting...
]]>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:12:00 GMTrjspragueSpout Mavens9/12/2008 4:12:00 PMI have 35 of these TOO!!! Uncounted From the back of the cover: Uncounted is an explosive new documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 and now looms as an unbridled threat to elections in 2008 and beyond. The controversial feature-length film by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt examines in factual, logical, and yet startling terms how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity across the U.S. Beyond increasing the public's awareness, UNCOUNTED inspires greater citizen involvement in fixing a broken electoral system. As we approach the decisive election of 2008, UNCOUNTED will change how you feel about the way votes are counted in America. Sounds exciting... http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gore/MemberTagFilms.aspxgore
Number of films tagged: 246

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 136

]]>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:52 GMT24650136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/manipulation/MemberTagFilms.aspxmanipulation
Number of films tagged: 249

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 65

]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:46:13 GMT2493965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/president/MemberTagFilms.aspxpresident
Number of films tagged: 808

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 46

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT8082146Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/election/MemberTagFilms.aspxelection
Number of films tagged: 224

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 37

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT2241937Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fraud/MemberTagFilms.aspxfraud
Number of films tagged: 175

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 16

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT1751416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/usa/MemberTagFilms.aspxusa
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 32

]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:27:26 GMT301132Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/voting/MemberTagFilms.aspxvoting
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:27:26 GMT6389Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bush/MemberTagFilms.aspxbush
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 14

]]>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:00:12 GMT14614Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/security/MemberTagFilms.aspxsecurity
Number of films tagged: 95

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 11

]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:30:48 GMT95611Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kerry/MemberTagFilms.aspxkerry
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:14:39 GMT444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/senate/MemberTagFilms.aspxsenate
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:01:16 GMT3345Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vote/MemberTagFilms.aspxvote
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:27:26 GMT444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/polls/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolls
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:27:26 GMT233Tag