Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

"Unprecedented" is an unsettling account of the 2000 Presidential Election, which should have been an alarm call to American citizens to do one of two major things: become active in moving forward voting reform, or become more apathetic about the entire voting process. It's another Robert Greenwald production, who has been well-known at putting together left leaning documentaries (on subjects such as Walmart and Rupert Murdoch) about important social and political issues. Even though this film tells the story of what put a Republican in office, and therefore does spin the information to prove without a doubt that an election was "stolen" from a Democrat, there are key societal issues that this film addresses that would hopefully affect viewers on a human level as opposed to a political level.

Starting with the illegal and unscrupulous manipulation of Florida's voter registration rolls, this film follows the legal tennis match over the U.S. 2000 Presidential election. The film is Left-biased, with a majority of the commentators and interviewees being from Florida civil rights advocacy organisations.

That said, this film should anger and upset just about everyone. If you're a see-no-evil conservative then you'll think this film is all lies and propaganda; everyone else will be outraged at what the Bush campaign got away with.

The final arguments of the film about the Supreme Court seem a little flimsy, but the majority of the material presented is sound, well-documented, clearly understandable, and can be easily researched yourself if you want to pursue the matter further.

Described by IndyMedia (who gave a talk at the event where I saw this) as a 'blockbuster', it summarises the many downright dodgy events in the US 2000 Election. Basing its arguments on hard facts rather than opinion (Fox News and the Daily Mail are you listening?) it illustrates the ruthlessness of the Republican disregard for democracy and state law as well as the complete lack of impartiality on the part of those running the legislature. It also shows how the Democrats damaged their campaign by going for selective recounts rather than a properly democratic complete hand recount. For anyone who dismisses it as Democrat propaganda, they should read 'democrat' - it doesn't make anyone look good. Living in a country where the principle of accuracy over speed in elections is under threat - I see this film as a warning.

I just want to say a couple of things and then I will shut up. Watching this film convinced me specifically of only a few things. And one of those things is that the Political Institutions of the Republican and Democratic Parties are totally corrupt and insane. Furthermore, it is my belief, especially after watching this film, you would have to literally be crazy to vote either Democratic or Republican, because this film made it clear that either party was only concerned about doing what they needed to win the 2000 election, or any election for that matter--NOT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE COUNTRY. I could go into detail about this, but feel it would be beating a dead horse. This is why I feel all Americans should always vote for 3rd parties and go out of their way NOT to vote Democrat OR Republican. Finally, I have been convinced that Democrats or Republicans have no business counting any votes because it is a conflict of interest on both sides for any election. Members of 3rd parties should be the only ones running election boards, & etc. because it has become obvious they are the only ones that could be trusted to be impartial if anyone at all. Lastly, completely automated (computer) voting machines are not to be trusted, as they come down to the persons who program and/or work on them. As someone who is highly knowledgeable of computers and their flaws, I have to tell you that there is no computer that cannot be hacked, no network that cannot be compromised. If you think that there is any chance an election can be fixed, computer voting centers should scare the pants off you, and automated (computer) voting should be visciously avoided and voted against by everyone who values the value of their vote. RATING: 8/10. By the way, I think having Danny Glover at the bookends of this film discredits it for anyone who has followed his political activism/extremism. I think that people on both sides of the fence, and those sitting on it, should watch films like these and Danny Glover alienates many potential watchers of this film. That's all from me for now.

A 50 min doc explaining the extremely complicated issue of the Florida vote recount in 2000. What not to like? Usually you need twice as much time to give the viewer this much information. It's an info dump made for viewers who otherwise wouldn't watch technical documentaries. A way to share into about the "unfair" Bush win over Gore to the masses.

Largely it focuses on how Bush's team used fishy tactics. Like being supported by Republican leaders in Florida, being supported by his brother, Jeb Bush, who was the governor of Florida. It's a ton of fishy devious tactics abusing the political system. Gore initially declared Bush president then retracted this statement to get a recount. He only demanded a recount in a few full on Democratic counties and they started the complicated recount. The issue was not counted ballots as the machines didn't work properly. Hence a hand recount anywhere would lead to more legal votes. A recount in a Democratic county would lead to more Democratic votes and a win for Gore. Initially the Supreme Court in Florida allowed it. Then the US Supreme Court said it wasn't allowed. Gore made a huge mistake. He only forced a few counties to recount their votes, clearly an unfair ask and a way to get extra votes for yourself while not getting any Republican counties to find extra votes. And the Supreme Court shut it down. What would happen if he had asked for a full recount? I'm not sure, but most states have automatic recounts if the vote is close so doing a full hand recount surely would have been approved. It's more likely than not that Bush would still have won. So maybe Gore did the only thing that gave himself a chance. But it was clearly irregular and there was no way Republicans in a Supreme Court would agree to it. Democrats of course did. Florida had Democrat governors which means their Supreme Court had Democrats supporting Gore. The doc doesn't mention this, but it overall just looks past more of the Democrat stuff to focus on Bush's tactics.

The doc is lots of fun. It's a lot of trickery. The wonderful movie Recount (2008) presents the story in a way less biased way. But I also get why the doc makers decided to mainly attack Bush and Republicans. They won so at the end their slimy tactics are the ones that counted the most. If Gore had won Republicans would have been the ones making the docs about it with their own slants and biases showing. The doc for example has Jake Tapper front a center being asked about everything. He's one of the biggest CNN anchors today in 2022 and clearly not neutral. Neither are many of the law professors they interview. They all take jabs at Republicans and Bush. Later Bush showed that the mistrust was warranted as he started 2 giant wars in the Middle East. One of which recently turned into a giant embarrassing loss for USA and the other still has not stabilized Iraq in any way. Plus it cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars. So one has to wonder how Gore would have done? Gore was not ideal either as he was Clinton's vice president and Clinton ended his presidency on a sour note even basically selling pardons to his rich criminal friends on his last days in office. Which made Gore look corrupt too. Other presidents did badly too. But at least Obama and Trump didn't start any big wars. So that's why the 2000 recount will always be a giant point of discussion. It elected Bush who made 2 giant mistakes and many smaller ones. It also made Democrats question the legitimacy of elections up until Trump defeated Hillary. From then on left-wing media has stopped talking about fraud in elections while Republicans and centrists now mention it regularly. But these groups only control a very small part of the media landscape so the debate is way smaller now. You can still find old NYT articles complaining about ballot miscounts. Which is funny as they wouldn't dream of writing this today as it's a Republican talking point and much of social media has clamped down on voter fraud accusations after Republicans picked up the topic so it's not as easy to write about anymore. Which just makes this 2002 doc extra curious and relevant today. It shows us that the party that lost the election or popular vote will often be the party to complain about voter fraud. It's not a one-sided issue. And at some point a big-shot Democrat will lose again and mass media will yet again start writing about election fraud and refer to the 2000 election.