Movie: Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election
Directors: Richard R. Perez and Joan Sekler
Producer: Joan Sekler and Richard R. Perez
Reviewed by Marc Pezzell December 9, 2002

Over the weekend, I saw the documentary film "Unprecedented". The film and its subject mater disturbed me greatly.  It illustrates some of the details pertaining to the controversy of our last presidential election.

In effect it adds more information to what is already known by many, that George W. Bush is not our legitimate president.  Gore won the popular vote, but it goes much deeper than that.  The level of corruption involved with the election process is almost beyond belief.  

Conflicts of interest were abound.  Not the least of these was that Katherine Harris, the secretary of state of Florida, the one who was supposed to be an impartial monitor and facilitator of the process, was herself very much involved with the Bush campaign.  It was obvious to all but the most dimwitted, that she railroaded the process wherever and whenever she could to favor Bush over Gore.

Had everything been done in a truly impartial matter, Gore would have had the Florida electoral votes to win the total electoral votes to become president.  As different points were made during the film, I had to perform more than one mental "double take".  One of those points was how so many people were falsely labeled as ex convicts and ineligible to vote when in fact there were only the most vague similarities between their names and real ex cons.  It's no coincidence, of course, that most of those falsely purged from the rolls were black and most of them were democrats, who would have most likely voted for Gore.

There are also many reports of voters being turned away because they didn't have the right documents with them, even though either the voter registration card or a valid I.D. would have been enough under Florida state law.  Guess who these people were?  Mostly Democrats. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

After all of this I have to ask this question.  Do we live in a Democracy?  Do we live in a Republic?  What is our form of government anyway?  We have just had a rather blatant demonstration that when push comes to shove, the people of the United States of America do not elect their leaders.  They are appointed.

Oh, sure.  We all know the Electoral College technically votes for the president, but they have, in the past, reflected the will of the people. Not this time.  I'm not accusing the Electoral College of wrongdoing. They are merely pawns in this.  At the least it has been demonstrated that at any time our right to vote can be compromised or taken from us at any time by those in power.  I thought we, the people, were the ones who were supposed to have the power.  Isn't this guaranteed to us in the Constitution?

At this time, I think about the newspaper heading after South Carolina seceded from the United States at the dawn of the Civil War, "The Union Is Dissolved".  I also ask the following question.  Maybe the reason we are having our rights taken away from us in this Union is because it no longer exists, except on paper, in name only.

I know that this is a rather pessimistic view of the situation and I admit that it is disturbing, but maybe the best way to deal with the problem is to look directly at it, no matter how horrifying it may be.  If the Union still exists, it is acting less and less like it.

Now we are stuck with a president for at least the next two years, maybe longer, who seems to be doing all he can, along with his lackeys, and puppet masters, to further erode the rights of U.S. citizens.  I am all for security.  Yes. Absolutely.  One would be foolish to let one's guard down in this day and age.

However, it seems to me that in those ways that matter most, the right steps are not being taken to ensure U.S. security.  Steps to take away the rights of Americans are being taken away, however.  This Homeland Security Department worries me.  I think the general concept is sound, that of streamlining the functions of different departments into one efficient machine.

However, there seem to be some very disturbing aspects of it which allows this new department to monitor the most private and personal details of U.S. citizens, and to move against them, without any recourse.  I am afraid.  I am very afraid.

One commonly hears the questions these days, "Where is the outrage?"  Why aren't people out in droves complaining that their country is being taken away from them, not from without, but from within?

Reforms must be made in our voting system, and they must be dramatic and immediate.  They must be fair and consistent in how votes are tallied.  Those who are registered and legitimately able to vote should never be denied their right.  The people and/or agencies responsible for overseeing the election process should themselves be monitored in some way, and must be held accountable if they are found to interfere with that process.  In this regard, I honestly believe that charges should be pressed against those responsible for interfering with the fair process of the 2000 election, including Katherine Harris, if there is such a law that can apply.  Nobody seems to want to come out and say it, but they committed a crime.

We also need to have "Instant Runoff Voting" to help ensure that voters will be able to choose the candidate they really want, whether from the two major parties or a third party, rather than simply picking "tweedle dee" because they are afraid of "tweedle-dum".  We also need some serious campaign finance reform.  We need to keep the rich from buying elections, so that the true will of the American people will be expressed in the choice of leadership.

We really need some campaign finance reform.  The McCain/Feingold bill was the right idea, but doesn't go nearly far enough.  We really, REALLY need some serious campaign finance reform.  Did I mention that we need some serious campaign finance reform?  Until this happens, along with Instant Runoff Voting and the other points mentioned, there will never really be fair elections.

So here is the situation.  We have a president in the White House that is not really our president.  He is, at best, a willing participant in the debacle of 2000.  The next election is in 2004.  So here's our chance. We have a few candidates on the horizon in the Democratic Party who are readying themselves to go against Bush at that time.

In addition to my urging them not to be "tweedle-dees", my message to them would be not to simply make clear how they intend to govern, but how to introduce some major election reform.  This should be, perhaps, the greatest campaign issue that these challengers should take, or at least one of the major ones.  It is, after all, the main principle upon which our nation is based.  The people are supposed to have the power, not only the rich, not only the powerful, but everyone. The candidates can compete with each other for who has the best ideas for the primary.

Then, the best one among them will challenge Bush in November, 2004.  I understand that the Legislature has much to do with these changes, but the President is, at the very least, a strong cheerleader for change.  I hope that it's positive this time.

On a scale of one to four, I give Unprecedented a three.

Back to Your Page