"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.