General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo Joke: Colbert Sister's 100% Unverifiable US House Election in SC
Stephen Colbert's Sister Will Run for U.S. House on 100% Unverifiable Voting Machines in SC
And the 'truthiness' contained in new state auditor's report on those flawed systems won't help...
When Stephen Colbert's older sister, Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D), faces her likely opponent, former Gov. Mark Sanford (R), in the May 7th U.S. House special election in South Carolina, it will all take place, once again, on the state's oft-failed, easily-hacked, always 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems. (NOTE: Unfortunately, despite today's date, this post is not an April Fools joke.)
The candidate announced as the "winner" of that election, based on those unverifiable voting systems, will either be the one who received the most votes from SC voters in the 1st Congressional District --- or the one who didn't. There will never be any way for anybody to know for sure one way or the other.
For that matter, after Sanford faces off with Curtis Bostic in Tuesday's Republican primary run-off election for the nomination, neither candidate will be able to know for certain whether they've actually won or lost that election either. This is South Carolina "democracy" in 2013 (and in at least one third of the country elsewhere.)
To make matters still worse, the state's Legislative Audit Council (LAC) has just released a new report on those failed voting systems. Unfortunately, the report includes a huge flaw which, when I pointed it out to Perry K. Simpson, Director of the LAC on Friday, his response was: "I see your point"...
FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9944
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... we can be damned sure the MSM won't find space for it.
Now, about that recount in Wisconsin: what's up with Waukesha County?
thanks BradBlog
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)makes it sound like Colbert-Busch is supporting unverifiable election machines.
I suggest editing your text to say "Voting for Colbert's system will take place on 100% unverifiable machines," or something similar.
BradBlog
(2,938 posts)Since you mentioned it, I've read the headline now several times to try and read it as you did. So far, no luck. Doesn't sound like I'm suggesting she's in favor of it or against it, for that matter.)
???
"Stephen Colbert's Sister Will Run for U.S. House on 100% Unverifiable Voting Machines in SC"
A candidate doesn't run on a machine. She runs on a platform of positions and voters cast ballots on voting machines.
See your point when you explain it that way. Though, obviously, I had to have that reading of it explained to me to read it that way!
With that said, it pretty much seems like the first graf clears up any confusion on that point, no? (Along with the rest of the piece?)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)It's just the beginning that isn't.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)that means real success whey you reach 100%
All selections should be so easy...
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)you don't even need to vote. The election's already been decided.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)responsible for 100% unverifiable voting machines is now our new Secretary of Defense.
blm
(113,065 posts).
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)BradBlog
(2,938 posts)...as nite's in the full article. The ES&S system is notorious for failure in election after election.