David Earnhardt, Filmmaker
Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
Filmmaker examines election fraud, voter suppression
By: Kelli Bamforth, Staff Writer
kellibamforth@sunpublications.com
For the skeptics who allege election fraud is nothing more than a conspiracy theory or hoax, filmmaker David Earnhardt simply says: “Look at the evidence.”
In “Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections,” Earnhardt examines some of the questions surrounding the 2004 presidential election and 2006 midterm elections. The issues include exit poll discrepancies in 2004, undervoting, voter suppression, electronic voting and provisional ballots.
Earnhardt began a national tour last month, screening his documentary as the 2008 primary elections get under way. He screened the film at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, 4501 Walnut, as part of the church’s Tuesday night film series. Earnhardt next heads to Minneapolis, Minn.
“I had lots of questions about the validity of the 2004 election results,” Earnhardt said. “The tabulated results were so out of sync with the exit polls. I knew about the lack of security in paperless electronic voting – and I knew about the long lines and missing machines in Ohio.
“So, I could see there was plenty of evidence that the irregularities likely affected the outcome of the presidential race.”
Earnhardt said the mainstream media mostly stayed away from the issue, but the Internet “was alive with the new way information gets disseminated…from computer scientists, alternative journalists, bloggers and authors.”
Earnhardt encountered many of the individuals featured in his documentary at the April 2005 National Election Reform Conference in Nashville, Tenn.
“They were all gathering to discuss what went wrong in the 2004 election and how to keep it from happening again,” Earnhardt said. “It was like a miracle… The footage we gathered at this historic conference gave me the foundation from which to build the film.”
The 2004 exit polls showed John Kerry winning the popular vote at about 51 percent, but the final tally of the voting machines showed President George W. Bush with 51 percent. This is a key element of Earnhardt’s theory.
“When you see how exit polls have been accurate and relied upon by networks to call elections for 40 years with just a smidge of the actual vote being counted, and then they’re dramatically off by 4.6 percent…statistically, it’s a one in a million shot the polls would be so far off,” Earnhardt said.
“Jim Crow” voter suppression became evident in 2004 when the lines in inner-city precincts across the nation, but especially in Ohio, stretched for hours while polling sites in suburban areas remained short, Earnhardt said. Election officials threw out voter registration applications from drives in a lot of African-American neighborhoods because “the forms needed to be on a certain weight paper,” he said.
“By doing that a lot of qualified voters were not able to vote because they weren’t on the rolls,” Earnhardt said. “It was later ruled in the courts that you can’t do that. Voter registration tends to yield more Democratic voters so by throwing those out you lose thousands of votes.”
Earnhardt also alleged that electronic voting machines can easily be flawed. Without voter-verified paper records, the technology does not make electronic voting safe or secure, he said.
“Unlike the personal risks that computer malfunctions and viruses pose for our home computers, the very legitimacy of our government is threatened when similar problems occur with electronic voting equipment,” Earnhardt said. “ Why would you not want to secure something as precious as a vote?”
While some legal repercussions came out of the 2004 election – like in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where police charged individuals for manipulating the recount – no significant or national lawsuits have resulted from the 2004 election fraud Earnhardt has explored.
It is sometimes difficult to pinpoint who is behind the actions, Earnhardt said.
“You have to look at each situation,” he said. “It’s not easy to pinpoint to one ‘master planner.’ That’s where you get in a conspiracy theory. There’s a lot of motivation for all parties to want to manipulate election results. This is part of a colorful past of election manipulation that’s always been with us.”
One key message in the film is for people to be vigilant about voting, Earnhardt said.
“The bigger picture with all this information is people need to vote, people need to vote, people need to vote,” he said. “This is how we hold leaders accountable. To take the attitude of ‘My vote won’t count’ is a passive approach. Showing up in droves and voting is very important.
“The film tends to get people inspired. It makes people mad – they’re like, ‘Don’t mess with my vote.’”
Missourians head to the polls Feb. 5 for a presidential primary election. Kansas City voters have two options available for casting their vote.
Each poll site has one optical scan voting device, which uses paper ballots similar to those used in standardized tests, and one touch screen voting system.
Both of these systems provide voters with second chance voting, which means voters will have the chance to examine their ballot before casting their vote and the machines will alert them if an office or an issue has been overvoted. Visit www.kceb.org for more information.
“I think if you have the option, I would encourage paper ballots, because you can observe who you voted for. You’re certain that what left your hand is what is recorded,” Earnhardt said. “One person, one vote can make a difference.”
printable version
e-mail this story
In “Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections,” Earnhardt examines some of the questions surrounding the 2004 presidential election and 2006 midterm elections. The issues include exit poll discrepancies in 2004, undervoting, voter suppression, electronic voting and provisional ballots.
Earnhardt began a national tour last month, screening his documentary as the 2008 primary elections get under way. He screened the film at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, 4501 Walnut, as part of the church’s Tuesday night film series. Earnhardt next heads to Minneapolis, Minn.
“I had lots of questions about the validity of the 2004 election results,” Earnhardt said. “The tabulated results were so out of sync with the exit polls. I knew about the lack of security in paperless electronic voting – and I knew about the long lines and missing machines in Ohio.
“So, I could see there was plenty of evidence that the irregularities likely affected the outcome of the presidential race.”
Earnhardt said the mainstream media mostly stayed away from the issue, but the Internet “was alive with the new way information gets disseminated…from computer scientists, alternative journalists, bloggers and authors.”
Earnhardt encountered many of the individuals featured in his documentary at the April 2005 National Election Reform Conference in Nashville, Tenn.
“They were all gathering to discuss what went wrong in the 2004 election and how to keep it from happening again,” Earnhardt said. “It was like a miracle… The footage we gathered at this historic conference gave me the foundation from which to build the film.”
The 2004 exit polls showed John Kerry winning the popular vote at about 51 percent, but the final tally of the voting machines showed President George W. Bush with 51 percent. This is a key element of Earnhardt’s theory.
“When you see how exit polls have been accurate and relied upon by networks to call elections for 40 years with just a smidge of the actual vote being counted, and then they’re dramatically off by 4.6 percent…statistically, it’s a one in a million shot the polls would be so far off,” Earnhardt said.
“Jim Crow” voter suppression became evident in 2004 when the lines in inner-city precincts across the nation, but especially in Ohio, stretched for hours while polling sites in suburban areas remained short, Earnhardt said. Election officials threw out voter registration applications from drives in a lot of African-American neighborhoods because “the forms needed to be on a certain weight paper,” he said.
“By doing that a lot of qualified voters were not able to vote because they weren’t on the rolls,” Earnhardt said. “It was later ruled in the courts that you can’t do that. Voter registration tends to yield more Democratic voters so by throwing those out you lose thousands of votes.”
Earnhardt also alleged that electronic voting machines can easily be flawed. Without voter-verified paper records, the technology does not make electronic voting safe or secure, he said.
“Unlike the personal risks that computer malfunctions and viruses pose for our home computers, the very legitimacy of our government is threatened when similar problems occur with electronic voting equipment,” Earnhardt said. “ Why would you not want to secure something as precious as a vote?”
While some legal repercussions came out of the 2004 election – like in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where police charged individuals for manipulating the recount – no significant or national lawsuits have resulted from the 2004 election fraud Earnhardt has explored.
It is sometimes difficult to pinpoint who is behind the actions, Earnhardt said.
“You have to look at each situation,” he said. “It’s not easy to pinpoint to one ‘master planner.’ That’s where you get in a conspiracy theory. There’s a lot of motivation for all parties to want to manipulate election results. This is part of a colorful past of election manipulation that’s always been with us.”
One key message in the film is for people to be vigilant about voting, Earnhardt said.
“The bigger picture with all this information is people need to vote, people need to vote, people need to vote,” he said. “This is how we hold leaders accountable. To take the attitude of ‘My vote won’t count’ is a passive approach. Showing up in droves and voting is very important.
“The film tends to get people inspired. It makes people mad – they’re like, ‘Don’t mess with my vote.’”
Missourians head to the polls Feb. 5 for a presidential primary election. Kansas City voters have two options available for casting their vote.
Each poll site has one optical scan voting device, which uses paper ballots similar to those used in standardized tests, and one touch screen voting system.
Both of these systems provide voters with second chance voting, which means voters will have the chance to examine their ballot before casting their vote and the machines will alert them if an office or an issue has been overvoted. Visit www.kceb.org for more information.
“I think if you have the option, I would encourage paper ballots, because you can observe who you voted for. You’re certain that what left your hand is what is recorded,” Earnhardt said. “One person, one vote can make a difference.”
Comments on "Filmmaker examines election fraud, voter suppression"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.DJ wrote on Jan 30, 2008 8:25 PM:
" Until we eliminate Proprietary Software in the Electronic voting machines - we will have election fraud. Proprietary Software is the programs and software that actually counts our votes. The software is written by programmers who are employed by the voting machine manufacturers and cannot be looked at by anyone not employed by that company. Don't be mistaken into thinkin these machines simply adds votes as voters enter them into the machines. Software can add, subtract, divide, multiply - and even delete votes. Software can also place an intended vote for one party into the opposing party. Remember, an electronic vote is nothing more than a binary statement that can be manipulated in countless ways. In other words, your vote can be manipulated in many ways - by any computer programmer or company and (sadly) is protected by law so you cannot contest it. Get acquainted with these terms of elections on the new electronic voting machines. DEMAND only a paper vote where you can mark your vote with a pencil so there is a record of your vote. "