Contact the hell out of their campaign and notify them of Brad's work.

http://colbertbuschforcongress.com/contact-us/

Maybe we can get Brad an appearance on her brother's television show to educate the voters about the realities of our election system in South Carolina and this nation in general.

http://colbertbuschforcongress.com/contact-us/

https://twitter.com/ColbertBuschSC
https://www.facebook.com/ColbertBuschForCongress

100% verifiable good news!

Off topic but..Listening to Thom Hartman the other day, he made a comment after someone called talking about a "Blaze" article on Texas I believe giving up their electronic voting. Thom said "Until I see it on The Brad Blog, I wont put much stock in it"

Davey -

It's "good news" when someone wins an unverifiable election? Thanks for reminding us that you put party over all else, including the most American of values: democracy.

The new unverified "normal" ...

Only a little over 100,000 people voting? Wow.

To heck with the Luv Gov, we need to send those iVotronics to the APPALACHIAN TRAIL! (which runs through Pennsylvania too, BTW)

Brad, thanks for keeping up the drumbeat on this. We can't let this issue go. People need to know how their votes are counted, meaning they need to be able to understand the process. Who can understand the process within an electronic voting machine? The average citizen? I think not. Democracy is supposed to be about the grassroots. If the grassroots can't grasp the workings of the voting system being used, it's not really democracy then, is it?

So, will somebody please explain it to me again. Why do we consider our Country a democracy?

The voter's names and addresses are available from public records. Somebody with the experience, time and money, and something to prove, could quietly drop a paid crew into those districts for a week to do an exit poll.

In March of this year "...former President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate requested a review of the voting machines used in South Carolina. He was concerned about the reliability of the machines and the lack of paper trail to confirm voting results."
The result were conclusive but there was no action, obviously:

How does one verify the unverified?

The voting machines were built to last at the most 5-7 years. Now here we are 12 years later, and anyone who believes the results on those magic boxes is either dumb as shit or mean as hell.

And, as both Brad and I predicted, not a peep out of the MSM about the fact that it is scientifically impossible to determine whether or not there is any validity in the "official results."

These unverifiable voting machines are inflicted on us with BIPARTISAN agreement.

Yet another reason I vote Green Party.

Brad / All ~

Seems Colbert Busch's name was on the ballot twice in Charleston:

http://www.politicususa....olbert-busch-ballot.html

(Thanks to Chris Brudy for the link!)

I agree this looks shady!?!

Come on I could not see any conservative especially a family value guy like Sanford being able to finish by coming up from the rear like this because of his christian family values...except Lindsey Graham.

Definitely setting off my BS sensors.

Jeannie Dean said @ 16:

Seems Colbert Busch's name was on the ballot twice in Charleston:

Correct. But, in theory, that would only matter on the paper Absentee ballots. In theory, the touch-screens would allow a vote for her only once, either for Dem Party or Working Families Party, and the vote totals were then combined. You can see the totals, by party, here.

On the absentees, however, there is a possibility that if voters were confused and chose Colbert Busch TWICE (one time for each party line she was listed on), it would be considered an overvote and, despite clear intent of the voter, the ballot would be tossed.

I tweeted about that last night, in the event the final results were declared (by the computer tabulators) to be very close and they would have to go to the VERIFIABLE absentee ballots to determine the final results.

This "election" is as trustworthy as the "election" of Alvin Greene for the US Senate by the Democratic Primary a few years ago. This "election" does not pass the smell test!

54-46 Sanford 'victory' in a special election.
54-46 2013 WI (R) Judge Rebecca Bradley 'victory' in Supreme Court special election, keeping it in Walker's pocket.
54-46 2012 Gov. Scott Walker 'wins' special election.

I say a 54-46 Repub victory is a settled upon number that stops talk of recounts, and yet doesn't demand too much electronic vote switching leading to suspicious results.

Counting votes in secret is specifically prohibited by the Constitution of South Carolina. See the first sentence of Article II, Section 1 of South Carolina's Constitution.

http://www.scstatehouse....v/scconstitution/a02.php

Should she challenge?

Waaaahhh!! Democrat lost...Rep CHEATED!!!! WAAAHHH!!

JJV @ 23 said:

Waaaahhh!! Democrat lost...Rep CHEATED!!!! WAAAHHH!!

Smart take.

And yet another idiotic take, this time by JJV @ 23. Makes me wonder how people who make such foolish and ignorant comments got through school. Isn't there reading comprehension that must be passed? Or did that get thrown out the window?

Reply to Molly Cruz:

Given that the SC state constitution was ignored, this election should most definitely be challenged on that alone!

Reply to David Lasagna:

People like this don't seem to care that their democracy is slipping out of their grasp, as long as present results work in their favor.

It's only when the PTB choose a candidate that is not to their liking do they wake up and realize that they have lost their voice.

Reply to David Lasagna

Clarification: "People like this" = JJV @ 23

How to rig computers.
I voted for Democrats except Sheriff.
I asked to review on screen. Every (100%) of my votes were under R.I had D had go investigate but said no problem. Bull Malarkey.
That software program wAs designed for a certain number would be correct followed by all R.
In Ohio, exit polls by major paper had always been accurate. Kerry by 16. Bush won by 16.!!!!!
Gore won overwhelmingly in Florida recount by three major news sources