Participants:
Clint Curtis
USA CN third-party re-publication 2/17/2026
946 views Jun 9, 2016
ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION UPLOADED
/ @uncountedthemovie http://www.UncountedTheMovie.com
“Mr. Curtis,” said the questioner at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee proceedings, “are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?”
And so begins the story of Clint Curtis – computer programmer, Floridian, Republican – who was asked by the company he worked for to create a vote-rigging software prototype that he assumed would be used to try and “catch” would-be fraudsters. It was a standard “opposition research” assignment – or so he was told. The truth, of course, was something completely different and weaves into a tangled web the 2000 Presidential Election debacle, a now-sitting U.S. Congressman, and the number one threat to our national security – electronic voting.
From Uncounted’s “Whistleblowers Should Have Their Own Trading Cards. With Bubblegum” Series.
Also available:
The Ballad of Steve Heller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhXzW...
What Happens to a Dream Deferred? The Tragic Story of Athan Gibbs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ewsD...
Bruce Funk: Why Diebold’s Disreputable Distinction is Dead On Deserved http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwHX7z...
Clip from UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections, a documentary by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt. UNCOUNTED shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 – and now looms as an unbridled threat to the 2008 election.
Computer Programmer Testifies Under Oath HeCoded Computers to Rig Elections
Clint Curtis, a computer programmer and attorney from Florida, is best known for testimony he gave underoath before members of Congress regarding election software and electronic voting systems.
Curtis discusses his background in computer programming, his congressional testimony, and his concerns regarding electronic voting systems.
The interview opens with video footage of Curtis testifying before Congress. During that testimony, Curtis stated that in 2000 he was asked to create a software prototype capable of altering election results without detection. Curtis testified that such software could be designed to change vote totals while leaving election officials unaware of the manipulation.
Throughout the discussion, Curtis argues that electronic voting systems present unique challenges because election outcomes depend upon software that is generally inaccessible to the public. He contends that programmers can design systems that alter vote tabulations, modify logs, and create records that appear legitimate to election officials and auditors.
Curtis discusses his professional background, describing work involving software development forgovernment agencies and major corporations. He explains that computer systems ultimately operateaccording to instructions written by programmers and that the public has little ability to independentlyverify what software is doing behind the scenes.
The interview also explores election practices in Europe, where Curtis notes that several countries relyheavily on paper ballots and hand counting. He argues that transparent counting procedures and publicobservation provide greater confidence in election outcomes than systems that rely primarily oncomputerized tabulation.
A recurring theme throughout the discussion is Curtis’s view that election systems should be transparentand independently verifiable. He contends that public confidence in elections depends upon citizens beingable to observe and verify how votes are counted.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Curtis’s conclusions, his testimony and long-standing involvement inelection integrity debates continue to generate discussion among policymakers, election officials,technologists, and citizens concerned with election administration.
This interview provides viewers with an opportunity to hear directly from Curtis regarding his experiences,congressional testimony, and views on electronic voting systems, election audits, and election transparency.
Interview
