Is a Simple-Stupid Glitch Primer Needed for Others to "Get it?"

This was in another thread and I started it here to pull it out.

I don't mean this to insult anyone here or in the public, but it seems that much of the public will readily accept irregularities as isolated glitches. My belief is the bulk of these people are the type that use computers like a microwave, meaning they don't really get how it all works. These are the kind that don't "get" that counting glitches and the like are software problems and the same software is loaded on multiple machines, which means that if one of the Y-type machines is off, all Y-type machines are likely to be off.

Do we need to start pushing a statement something along the lines of:

"Because the voting machines are "dumb" until software is loaded, glitches in one machine are a strong indicator that the same problem is likely to exist in other machines of the same type. There have been isolated machine problems identified and reported by news outlets, which makes it highly probable that problems exist in other machines running the same software. Recent university analyses appear to confirm this suspicion as voting anomalies have been tied to specific voting machines and software in certain regions of the country. The result has been that the outcome in certain areas has been as statistically improbable as winning the election."

Probably would need to be stripped down a few times to get it shorter, if it's necessary, but I'm wondering if we need a statement like this that we can start spreading. We need some way to get past the "glitch" dismissals.

Anyone care to chime in?

I'll help keep this kicked because I think this is a strong talking point.

Slipped up.

All machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they are all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. There have been isolated machine problems identified and reported by news outlets, which makes it highly probable that problems exist in other machines running the same software. Recent university analysis appear to confirm this suspicion as voting anomalies have been tied to specific voting machines and software in several regions of the country. The result has been that the outcome in certain areas has been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto.

All machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they are all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. There have been isolated machine problems identified and reported by news outlets, which makes it highly probable that problems exist in other machines running the same software. Recent university analyses support this suspicion as voting anomalies have been tied to specific voting machines and software in several regions of the country. The bottom line is that in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto.

That's why it's always good to communicate-communicate-communicate.

Good talking point, by the way. But the corallary to the above is simplify-simplify-simplify. So I offer: "All machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they're probably all faulty."

NGU.

If we say all machines use the same, it's not accurate. I agree it's simpler, however.

same software HAVE the glitch. Don't use "probably", its certain. I am a computer engineer, I know this for a fact. I stated this fact about two weeks ago too. Take as an example the continuous updating that operating systems like MS XP need. All computers running XP need the patches to fix the glitches, not just certain computers. This because the problem is with the software, not with the hardware running the software. Same with voting software.

I write talking points like this into a Word doc. That way I have it to cut and paste all over the place. Blogs, emails, and hammer your local press as well as the national. Most people aren't like us and get the most of their news locally at 6 or in the newspaper.

I'll start by starting a chain through my e-mail contacts asking them to pass along this explanation of why so many people in the country believe an investigation is needed.

Voting machines use the same software, so if one type of machine has a glitch they are all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. There have been isolated machine problems identified and reported by news outlets, which makes it very likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software. Recent university analyses support this suspicion and have tied voting anomalies to specific voting machines and software in several regions of the country. The bottom line is in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto.

Instead of:
There have been isolated machine problems identified and reported by news outlets, which makes it very likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software.

Maybe this?
Since isolated machine problems have been identified and reported by news outlets, it is likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software.

instead of: it is likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software.

problems very likely exist in other machines running the same software.

I'm definitely not the best at this- but my friend's taking a grad-level course for a public policy degree from Maxwell (#1 pp school in nation). The course stresses simplicity in writing- basically so a fifth grader could understand. Ex- 'legalese' should be avoided- words like 'therefore' 'hence' 'herego'(legal talk). Also, superflous words should be avoided whenever possible.

Well, good luck- I'm about to write a paper that is gloriously overflowing with excessive words (i.e. bullshit) :)

good call

This should be part of trying to change the FRAME.

Our mantra needs to be "Show me the voter."

Not your blackbox results -- Show me the Voter.

Not a name on a list -- Show Me The Voter!

Not a signed book -- SHOW me the VOTER!!

Voting machines use the same software, so if one type of machine has a glitch they're all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. There have been isolated machine problems reported by news outlets, which makes it very likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software. University analyses support this suspicion and have tied voting anomalies to specific voting machines in several regions of the country. The bottom line is in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto twice.

Voting machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they're all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. There have been isolated machine problems reported by news outlets, which makes it very likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software. University analyses support this suspicion and have tied voting anomalies to specific voting machines in several regions of the country. The bottom line is in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto twice.

Voting machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they're all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. Since isolated machine problems have been identified and reported by news outlets, it is likely that problems exist in other machines running the same software. University analyses support this suspicion and have tied voting anomalies to specific voting machines in several regions of the country. The bottom line is in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto twice.

Voting machines use the same software, so if one machine has a glitch they're all faulty. Think of it like an auto recall. Since isolated machine problems have been identified and reported by news outlets, problems exist in other machines running the same software. University analyses support this suspicion and have tied voting anomalies to specific voting machines in several regions of the country. The bottom line is in certain areas voting results have been as statistically improbable as winning the lotto twice.

short and to the point...

Is that how it works here?

Errors are common in complex computer systems. Although, computing errors in general if not created for a specific purpose, should have an equal effect to all canidates in a voting system. These don't, almost all errors in the 2004 election favor an outcome for Bush.

Every measure we have in democracy to test if there was fraud in an election has indicated FRAUD.

Then you can go on with the myriad number of pieces of evidence that have been accumulated.

We need to get a few of these together and then start a thread asking everyone to pick one and blast everyone they know.

Every check in place to ensure an "honesty proof" election indicates the criminal act of fraud took place Nov 2.

BTW : We should talk as if the fraud has been proved(past tense).

The will of the people has been stolen, by the desires of others.

I agree with you but also think we need to get the people who are writing off news reports as glitches to see the error in the assumption. Two issues, I think. One for people who already get it is every check so far has shown fraud. For people who don't, we need them to understand first that it can't be written off as a glitch.

I had a discussion on a german forum, where some just said nearly the same "this was just a glitch".. if i ask them why that happend, they tell its because of windows or the program. and i tell them bullshit. its like a pocketcalculater.. the evoting machines have the same hardware and aswell as software. if one is having / doing bugs, then the others do too.

same with a pocketcalculater..

there CANT be glitche.. not even ONE glitch should be allowed by law. if there is ONE glitches caused by a "software bug".. all other Softwares running on different evoting machines should be doubted.

I think we all know people like this. If we don't, our friends do. Getting something like this out should be helpful. Damned sure can't hurt...