Review: Electoral Dysfunction
Participants: Drew, Sean, Bobby, Shane, Bryan, Jon
Initiator: Drew
Drew
Well, how was that first documentary? If all else fails, most of us can agree it is better than Only God Forgives.
Anyway, when I first heard of this, I could hardly wait to see it. It had nothing to do with Mo Rocca or that Indiana was involved in it. Rather, it had everything to do with the topic. The discussion of the Electoral College (E.C.) is important and interesting yet incredibly frustrating because adults know very little about it or what it does. With that being stated, Electoral Dysfunction did a fairly good job of illustrating its working.
I particularly liked how Rocca used an elementary class to simulate the workings of the E.C. That was creative, effective, and accurate. The result was convenient where most of the students picked one and the "electoral college" chose the winner, which was the other option. I say it was convenient because it illustrated what Rocca and the film wanted - the E.C. misrepresents the will of the people. Well, that is not entirely true. More on that later.
Another informational aspect of the film is the ease of someone becoming an elector. Like the film suggested, it is incredibly easy for anyone to become a state elector. The only thing that is required is party identification and paper work. That is all. If more people knew that, more people would want to be an elector, which could lead to faithless electors - people who claim to vote for a candidate but votes for the other guy.
Any time Indiana is mentioned in any kind of media, my initial reaction is to cringe. I am paranoid Hollywood or any independent filmmaker will poke fun of my beloved home state. When I saw Rocca going to Indiana, I feared for the worst. Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised. I was happy to see something meaningful from Indiana as opposed to Rocca pulling a Bill Maher in Religulous.
Now, Electoral Dysfunction is biased against the E.C., toward the popular vote, and against voter ID laws. Essentially, it chronicles the politicization of voting. Indiana is chosen not because it was a "swing state" in 2008 but because at the time it had stringent voter ID laws. Rocca wanted to see how the McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden people handled the situation. What Rocca found was exactly for what he looked; the right to vote turned to a political viewpoint. The issue of Mike Marshall highlights that.
I disagree with the film's thesis on the E.C. There have only been four instances in American history where the E.C. winner and the popular vote winner did not match up. That was in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Since 1824 - the first election where the popular vote was recorded - it had four hiccups. That is a stable system.
Also, the popular vote will not be as representative as Electoral Dysfunction claimed. It makes it sound like participation will skyrocket and will be pure. That is incorrect. The focus will no longer be on states but the most populated cities. Furthermore if people want less money in politics, the popular vote method is not the way to go. That method will make people more sick of politics than they are currently.
I will write more in my second round but all in all, Electoral Dysfunction was pretty good. It is not an "A" movie but a "B/B-" is fairly accurate. Grade: B-
Sara, what did you think?
Another one I should've vetoed. This time not because I knew it would be an abomination but that I typically think docs are incredibly boring. I've made it through 3/4 of the doc so far through 2 separate attempts to watch. It's interesting I suppose, it'd be more so if I wasn't well educated. I think the doc is more aimed at people who didn't learn anything in grade school and high school and clearly paints the picture as Drew mentioned that determining voting rights is too politically dependent. I think the Republicans in the doc oftentimes seem like they are playing up their fears of voter fraud but I don't particularly buy into them actually having real fear of fraud, it could be they're just not good at selling their viewpoints to the camera because they're not actors but I think they're mostly full of shit in selling their political rhetoric. That said, I don't think their purpose is to disenfranchise voters or to prevent fraud it's much simpler and even came off as more natural when DeeDee was explaining they need photo id for most things they do in their lives why not something as important to them as voting. The "disenfranchised" democrats do a much better job selling their fears as being legitimate but I personally felt like Marshall and company's fears are based mostly in paranoia that big bad republican is always out to get them, which coincidentally they seemed to be in the case of the lawsuit over absentee ballots.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching most of the doc I would agree that for national elections or elections for federal seats- POTUS, Senator, House Rep, there should federal uniformity in the way the elections rules are. For state seats let the states do what they want. Would 2 separate rules create confusion? Yep, so I'm guessing most states would fall in line with federal rules (they typically do for awarding financial aid).
It wasn't terrible but I wasn't entertained as clearly I haven't finished it yet. I'll try to finish and see if my mind changes any for round two. C+ish?
As most of you know, I never had much interest in politics. Lately, however, my uncle has been making an effort to get me more into it. So for me, Electoral Dysfunction was both, slightly, educational and entertaining.
ReplyDeleteThe Elementary school gig was cute, but seemed pretty set up. Even the kid crying 'not fair!' didn't come off as too genuine to me. If you watched after the credits, they showed a quick clip of him saying it again...and it almost seemed coached. Maybe it's just my skepticism on the convenience of the vote working out the way it did.... but I suppose it still got the point across.
Drew... You say that the system is stable and just fine, having only 4 elections where the EC elected a different president than the popular vote dictated. That's.... around, 7% (depending on how many elections we're counting) of the elections have gone against the people, so to speak. You're okay with that number? 7% of a bad thing doesn't sound insignificant. I mean, if 7% of your beer was horse piss, you'd have an issue... even if the FDA doesn't. Mmm, hyperbole. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you consider the EC negating the popular vote as a bad thing. Regardless of how they went about it, there would be strategies that somebody would frown upon. Even if they targeted the most populated cities/metros, it's still the 'voice of the people' to some extent... at least, those who cast their vote.
I would have liked to have heard more about the Electors... how/if they're held accountable at all. The kids he talked to wasn't too informative or entertaining, and the other guy was just excited to be there. I know some states give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state... but it that simply a verbal agreement, or can an Elector pretty much do what they choose come December? And they don't even need picture ID!?
I enjoyed the fact that the doc took place in Indiana... and seeing that the most recent election was the first I actually participated in, I didn't know all that much about the process/rules.
Overall, I do think they gave fair time and attention to both sides, and while clearly not too big of a fan of the Electoral College... didn't show much bias toward either party. It's nice when a documentary doesn't try to force opinions on you. Rocca was amusing enough and did a generally good job throughout the movie. I'll recommend this to my uncle and see what he thinks... he's got opinions for everything political.
Solid documentary... I don't hate it, don't love it. Grade B-
"It's interesting I suppose, it'd be more so if I wasn't well educated. I think the doc is more aimed at people who didn't learn anything in grade school and high school..."
ReplyDeleteTo begin this review, I had to restate what Sean said. It's true. I didn't really learn a whole lot from this doc. That doesn't mean it has no value, but it is limited educationally.
What I liked about it was that it was pretty fair. Going in I feared that it might be an attempt to make right-wingers look dumb for what is an empirically dumb thing to worry about. But I thought they ended up treating both sides pretty fair. If you came into this movie holding a view point one way or the other on these ID rules, it wasn't going to change your mind and it never tried to. That's fine by me. If you were on the fence or lacked knowledge of the system, then maybe this made a difference.
As far as the the premise on the EC, I could see how this movie was persuasive. It is an odd system after all and designed for an America that was completely different. I think it's a pretty reasonable stance to want to get rid of the EC, but I'm not sure if a purely population vote is the way to go. This movie didn't change my mind on that. (Sidenote: Dingo just came at me like a bear. I nearly lost an eye.) Also, Bobby, you must be a stupendous student because 7% is statistically significant. [Shane needs to take a class in reading comprehension. -Ed.]
The kids thing was cute and I would have objected, but they noted it was pretty silly. It reminds me of when libertarians use that example of explaining taxes to kids by giving hard-working Kid A's candy to the lazy Kid B as if we're supposed to be dazzled by the mouth of babes. Children are dumb and don't know anything. That's why they're not allowed to do stuff like dress themselves, make a sandwich or go outside alone. If they can't do those things responsibly, I don't know why we need their opinions on complex political and economic issues.
In the end, I think this is a C+. Informative for people who didn't pay attention in social sciences, but ultimately not much interesting or new information that could keep a moderately informed viewer involved
Blame Dingo for your error against Bobby, he did come at you like a bear. Or you could blame yourself for letting him live.
DeleteI should have smothered him years ago.
DeleteWhen I watch a documentary I’m looking for something interesting and new. I find electoral politics interesting, but this was nothing new to me. I was an election judge in the 2008 election and I’m a stickler for the rules so this was rehash of my 8am course in downtown Chicago. Even corrupt Illinois has the same Democrat-Republican rules in terms of locking up ballots and transferring data.
ReplyDeleteThe scene in the classroom was good, but it’s pretty obvious they took the popular vote then purposely divided kids into specific groups to make the electoral college vote different. Maybe I’ll have my students do that next year as a Pre-Algebra lesson.
Yes Bobby, electorates to the Electoral College can do whatever they want. I assume they sign something or verbally agree, but they won’t be thrown in jail if they don’t vote how the state did. There is a movement where some states are trying to agree to cast all their electoral college votes to whomever wins the popular election. This circumvents the electoral college, but technically leaves it intact.
I’m not for requiring voter ID’s because it’s not free for the homeless to take the time/energy/gas to get to the required facilities. I’ll be for ID’s at the voting booth when someone requires states to track down and give an ID to everyone. Out of principle I refuse to show my ID the last two times it has been requested here in Illinois. However, you do have to show it for early voting which is weird.
Coming up with overly strict laws for something like mass voter fraud, which has no data backing it is either paranoia or incredible foresight. The scene in the lady’s home where she is very worked up about the election containing fraud seems like it could be true across many Republican households in this country. Her hysteria is most likely based on hearsay, gossip, and I would assume Fox News.
Rocca did an ok job trying to keep people amused. There was some machine graphic I liked, but the highlight of the movie for me was when they mentioned Milan, Indiana and I started daydreaming about watching Hoosiers.
Grade?
DeleteCompared to Riley, I’m a big fan of documentaries. One made my top 10 for 2013, and documentaries were my favorite movies in 2008 and 2003. I’ll definitely be putting some up in the future. Compared to a narrative movie, a documentary’s success is all the more impressive, because it has to work as both a cinematic and a learning experience. For me, Electoral Dysfunction barely works as education, and fails as a movie.
ReplyDeleteI’m not going to harp on the movie’s arguments too much because you’ve all already done a pretty good job of that. My feeling towards the electoral college is that if the 2000 election didn’t spur any changes in the way we elect presidents, then nothing will. It feels like a pretty moot point to me. What I found more interesting is the extreme segmenting of districts, such that the country has more than 13000 different sets of rules. Instead of trying to find someone in favor of voter ID’s, I would have preferred the movie interview someone who could intelligently argue why each community needs to have its own way of doing things. That seemed like the root of the problem, and it was taken for granted by the filmmakers.
The movie also presented the chicanery around voting as something that didn’t exist before the 21st century. Why not a segment on real-life voting schemes, like are shown in Gangs of New York or that Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob steals a mayoral election. Surely, there are historical counterparts that would put the argument around voter ID in perspective. There’s the seed of a good idea with the design expert (whatever) critiquing the different ballots, but they don’t spend enough time with him. The Scalia interview falls in the same category. Shouldn’t a documentary called Electoral Dysfunction be most interested in perhaps the most dysfunctional election in our country’s history? Instead, he’s given 15 seconds before the filmmakers move on to the next thing. My feeling is that this is a new front in a long-fought war. Drew, since you’re the professional, I’d love to hear your thoughts about this in particular.
I’m also not clear on what Electoral Dysfunction’s audience is. I got the feeling throughout that this was something that high school football coaches could show their history/government classes in lieu of actually teaching. Like everyone else has said before, if you have a passing interest in history and current events, very little here is going to be new information. The most interesting part was the blurb at the end about the Indiana Democratic operative going to jail, but there wasn’t much there. Here’s the actual needle in a haystack, validating Republican fears; someone successfully prosecuted for voter fraud. That’s a shot from heaven for the filmmakers, but maybe through no fault of their own, they don’t spend any time on it. What’s the evidence against him, what does he have to say about it? If I wanted to know that, I’d have to look elsewhere.
Moving in to Electoral Dysfunction’s success as a movie, it does every single thing I hate in documentaries. The movie is less about voting than it is about the narrator learning something. Rocca has to get in on every shot, every interview has to cut to him listening intently, and his corny jokes never land. He asks simple questions that he clearly knows the answers to, and then acts shocked when he hears the answers. To fill time, the movie uses stock footage of a cop pulling over a pregnant woman for some reason, and information dumps are covered with sub-Schoolhouse Rock level animation. They make those poor saps hunt through the giant constitution with magnifying glasses trying to find the right to vote, and Rocca does those bullshit Jay Leno-style man on the street interviews that I hate so much. You can feel the heavy hand of the editor cutting out all the parts that didn’t go the filmmakers’ way.
ReplyDeleteThe falseness of everything here really bothered me, too. I agree with Bobby, that school segment was rigged. Everything happened exactly as the film needed it to, helped along with cute music in the background. The teenage elector ends his interview with “I hope you learned a little bit more about the electoral college.” I had to write that sentence down, it seemed so fake. I disagree with Drew in that the filmmakers were decent to Indiana. They used stock footage of the Amish and yodeling to remind the viewer where they were. We’re the 15th most populous state, and the 16th most population-dense, and while I admit they treated the subjects with respect, the filmmakers otherwise implied that Indiana’s a backwater. Lastly, I’m going to maybe reveal my curmudgeonly side, but one scene in particular had me yelling profanity at the screen. Near the end, when Indiana is casting its 2008 elector votes, someone stands up and asks for ID. A cute aside at best, the hall instead erupts in laughter and applause, and the camera, of course, finds Rocca, about ready to fall out of his chair. Maybe that was a legitimate joyful moment, but again, it struck me as so fucking false as to be impossible.
What did we learn? That Indiana has prosecuted one person of voter fraud on three counts. That Mo Rocca’s an insufferable douche. That Scalia is dismissive. Some of this, particularly the first part gets this to a C- for me when it comes to grading Electoral Dysfunction as a piece of information. As a film, it is a straight F, a simplistic manipulation that skirts deeper issues and context in favor of cheap laughs and wooden interviews. Combined, this is a D, and a prime example of why Rocca’s comedy/acting career has been surpassed by his former Daily Show colleagues. At the reunions, I hope Steve Carell gives him a wedgie.
I looked up Marshall after watching. He was charged on some asinine number of felony counts, but took a guilty plea for 3 misdemeanors and 18 months probation.
DeleteI'm going C-, it was C+ upon finishing it but the arguments against it resonate much more than its positives.
Jon, you've convinced me. I lower my grade to a C-.
DeleteOkay, so Jon is whipping up support, which is interesting. He's always persuasive to some but this...wow...
ReplyDeleteNow, this documentary was endorsed and supported by PBS, so it is meant for an educational purpose. All of you would not believe how many people are unaware of the E.C. and how it works and this piece does a fairly, yet simplistic, good job of informing the viewer.
I could not disagree with Jon more when he claimed the filmed made Indiana appear backward. Yeah, there iare Amish people in Indiana - a lot in Daviess and Washington counties - and they are seen in the film, big deal? There are also cornfields in Indiana, Jon, should they not have shown those either? Yodeling? I must have missed that because I do not remember that. If they wanted to really poke fun of Indiana, they could have constantly treated us like Shelbyville treats Springfield (Simpson's reference) and they did nothing of the kind. Your description is a tad over the top.
Jon, you are correct in that voter identification is now at the forefront of elections. Believe it or not, the film spent a great deal of time discussing voter ID laws and correctly predicted how states will politicize voting. In 2011 and 2012 and last summer, we saw just that with section 3 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act ruled unconstitutional, and southern states following Indiana's lead with the passage of voter ID laws. The sections of Scalia's interview kept with the theme. The whole point of Electoral Dysfunction, Jon, is show how the E.C. and voter ID laws make voting a fiasco. It did a fine job doing so.
Now, Bobby, you question how I am fine with 7% of the elections being messed up - that is, the winner of the E.C. has not been the winner of the popular vote. That deserves a response. First and foremost, the E.C. was setup because the Framers (of the Constitution) did not trust the public. After all, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution allows the direct vote of U.S. Senators and that was not ratified until 1913. Before that, they were elected by State Legislatures. The only chamber for which the people had the vote was the House of Representatives. There was a constant fear of the public making incoherent and rash decisions and doing that for one chamber of Congress sufficed.
Now, onto your response, the system has not failed. Why, because the E.C. is the system we use. The states choose how they want select their electors and 48 out of 50 use its popular vote. The other two use the popular vote of its congressional districts. In those 48 states, it takes 51% for a state to be declared "red" or "blue." If a candidate win with a state with 75% of the vote yet loses the next three states 47% - 53%, he is probably ahead in the national popular vote. Doesn't do much good. Let me put it another way. Take the 1996 World Series for example. The Braves outscored the Yankees in 6 games 26 to 18, yet lost the series 4-2. How can that be? How is that fair? Same rules apply. Oddly enough, the f-ing Yankees won Game 5 by a score of 1-0. So what's the point of all that? System isn't flawed. It is what we use and if a better idea that can change the Constitution, then I will be fine with that too.
Bryan is right about Marshall. Another example of how voting is politicized and was shown in the film.
I thought the film did exactly what it was supposed to do and that was give a bit of insight to our complicated electoral system. It did so in a somewhat humorous way for people to learn and it was a successful mission. "B-" is accurate and grade stands.
Sorry, Just got around to reading your reply Drew. I still don't think you really answered my question. But, it seems like you're saying, you don't have to be okay with 7% failure, because there is to failure due to it just being a systematic outcome. That means there is almost no such thing as any failure, because as long as a system is in place any result of it is acceptable. I'm assume that's not what you mean... which implies that you don't think the popular vote is that important in the long run?
DeleteAnd your comparison to a World Series doesn't do it for me in the least. The teams are playing (up to) 7 separate games, with different results within the same rules, each beginning anew. There are not 50+ different games within the same rules here. It is also decided upon by opinion not direct competition. It'd work better if you tried a competition that uses a judging system...and even then, it'll likely be a stretch. I get the point you're trying to make with it, but it doesn't work for me.
A big part of my argument on the educational side of the film was that because I knew all this stuff already, it didn't give me anything new. I can imagine Drew having more of a connection to the material, because it's a good bet he runs into people that are totally uninformed about the issue. That's fine, because the 'I know about this stuff' argument is a subjective one that isn't the film's fault. Drew calls it simplistic, which for an informed person is a negative aspect, but it could just as easily be a positive one for the uninformed, or a teacher of the uninformed.
DeleteThe objective argument is its failures as a film, which I got well into. Specifically on the portrayal of Indiana, the filmmakers could have included any stock footage of Indiana, and they chose to include multiple shots of the Amish. Not the Brickyard, or the industrial north, or basketball, but Amish. It's condescending and implies backwardness. Ohio and Illinois both have Amish, but I doubt stock footage of those states would include them. I'm not saying Indiana is some kind of densely populated metropolis, but the choice of the Amish and the quaint soundtrack was specific.