What if Obama wins because of vote fraud?

[djones520]

So lets say Obama wins.  Popular vote is really close (1%ish), but he carries Ohio and and pulls the electoral lead.

Then a month later investigations turn up that the only reason he won was because of voter fraud.  What then?

[Hawkgirl]

So lets say Obama wins.  Popular vote is really close (1%ish), but he carries Ohio and and pulls the electoral lead.

Then a month later investigations turn up that the only reason he won was because of voter fraud.  What then?

He gets impeached! I hope

[Chris_]

So lets say Obama wins.  Popular vote is really close (1%ish), but he carries Ohio and and pulls the electoral lead.

Then a month later investigations turn up that the only reason he won was because of voter fraud.  What then?

The MSM claims it's "payback" for the "stolen election" of 2000.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No court would want to go down in history as the King Maker. Any suits would be unheard.

That leaves a socialist terrorist sympathizer who looks away as his brownshirts run amok and he sends Truth Squads out to harrass his opponents as our CinC.

Our best hope is a political insurrgency that so weakens him as to make him impotent.

Not likely though if the dems grow their margins in congress and the GOP loses what little is left of their spine for fear of being called racist.

[djones520]

He gets impeached! I hope

I mean before he's inaugurated.  And this is under the assumption that he wasn't "involved".

[Wretched Excess]

So lets say Obama wins.  Popular vote is really close (1%ish), but he carries Ohio and and pulls the electoral lead.

Then a month later investigations turn up that the only reason he won was because of voter fraud.  What then?

this has actually happened before on a state level, and the results have always stood.  but constitutionally speaking, there is no way to overturn the results of a federal election, even if it is proven to be hopelessly riddled with fraud.

the short answer is that the winner still wins.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

this has actually happened before on a state level, and the results have always stood.  but constitutionally speaking, there is no way to overturn the results of a federal election, even if it is proven to be hopelessly riddled with fraud.

the short answer is that the winner still wins.

Why even bother?

It would be the same as outlawing robbery with no threat of apprehension, incarceration or other penalty.

[djones520]

So come Nov 4th, it doesn't matter?  ACORN could come forth and said that Obama carried 5 states due to imaginary voters, and nothing would affect him becoming president?

[Wretched Excess]

Why even bother?

It would be the same as outlawing robbery with no threat of apprehension, incarceration or other penalty.

indeed.  and my guess would be that mccain would refuse to pursue any legal remedy even if he was sure that the election was stolen for the sake of national unity, and because a consitutional crisis would benefit no one it a time of war and (presumably still) economic unrest.  the same as nixon did in 1960, even though dead people in chicago won the election for kennedy.

mccain is the un-gore in that regard, I would think.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

indeed.  and my guess would be that mccain would refuse to pursue any legal remedy even if he was sure that the election was stolen for the sake of national unity, and because a consitutional crisis would benefit no one it a time of war and (presumably still) economic unrest.  the same as nixon did in 1960, even though dead people in chicago won the election for kennedy.

mccain is the un-gore in that regard, I would think.

To me that is an admission of being unfit to be president.

The role of the president is to defend the constitution, not allow crooks to steal votes from the majority of Americans. Standing idle is the opposite of what a real president should do.

And when the **** have the dems ever stood for national unity for us? We're in the middle of a @#$%ing war and they cavort with Code Pink that gave $700k to al Zarqawi, they defame marines on trial, the hold anniversaries for Abu ghraib, the call our generals liars, they call a beaten enemy the winners, they violate the Logan Act almost on a daily basis.

The last thing this nation needs in this time of war is "unity" with these @#$%ing traitors.

@#$% "bipartisanship" and any @#$%er dumb enough to use the word in a positive context.

[Wretched Excess]

To me that is an admission of being unfit to be president.

The role of the president is to defend the constitution, not allow crooks to steal votes from the majority of Americans. Standing idle is the opposite of what a real president should do.

And when the **** have the dems ever stood for national unity for us? We're in the middle of a @#$%ing war and they cavort with Code Pink that gave $700k to al Zarqawi, they defame marines on trial, the hold anniversaries for Abu ghraib, the call our generals liars, they call a beaten enemy the winners, they violate the Logan Act almost on a daily basis.

The last thing this nation needs in this time of war is "unity" with these @#$%ing traitors.

@#$% "bipartisanship" and any @#$%er dumb enough to use the word in a positive context.

that's all fine and good, but he isn't the president at that point.  ya know?  and beyond subsequent impeachment (which ain't gonna happen with pelosi and reid in charge), there just isn't a constitutional remedy to a stolen election.  it was basically impossible to steal an election at the founding . . . as it should be today, but the dems have been at this for 8 years now.  our mistake was waiting this late before fighting back.

[DumbAss Tanker]

this has actually happened before on a state level, and the results have always stood.  but constitutionally speaking, there is no way to overturn the results of a federal election, even if it is proven to be hopelessly riddled with fraud.

the short answer is that the winner still wins.

Exactly correct.  Once the results are certified, and sans challenges to that, it's over.  The GOP would have to challenge within the applicable timelines in the various states, and if Obama carries Ohio, Virginia, and/or Florida they absolutely need to do it.  Without proper challenge, later revelations of rampant fraud no matter how well-documented would not matter a bit.

[Chris_]

this has actually happened before on a state level, and the results have always stood.  but constitutionally speaking, there is no way to overturn the results of a federal election, even if it is proven to be hopelessly riddled with fraud.

the short answer is that the winner still wins.

It has also happened before in a presidential contest as well.  Just after the Civil War, (I'll have to go home and look up which election it was) there was widespread voter fraud on the part of - surprise surprise - the Democrat party, especially in the South. (In a parallel to today's election, they felt that they were justified - union troops enforcing the 14th/15th amendment voting rights of freed slaves in the face of mob opposition was justification enough for fraud on their part.)

[Wretched Excess]

It has also happened before in a presidential contest as well.  Just after the Civil War, (I'll have to go home and look up which election it was) there was widespread voter fraud on the part of - surprise surprise - the Democrat party, especially in the South. (In a parallel to today's election, they felt that they were justified - union troops enforcing the 14th/15th amendment voting rights of freed slaves in the face of mob opposition was justification enough for fraud on their part.)

I assume you mean 1876.  significantly different, it seems to me.  and even assuming the worse case scenario in 1876, it wasn't stolen in the same sense as this one could be about to be.  the provisions governing the federal election process were just very different then.

interesting story, to be sure.  but I don't see many parallels to 2008.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Chimpeachment!!!  Er, Obampeachment!!!!

[jinxmchue]

I have a solution: put pressure on the electors to cast their votes for the true winner.

[paladin0]

I have a solution: put pressure on the electors to cast their votes for the true winner.

That will never happen, as the electiors will be Obama faithful.

I do see civil unrest as the result, and if the country gets into a deep recession or depression there will be massive turnover in congress.

Paladin0

[NHSparky]

So lets say Obama wins.  Popular vote is really close (1%ish), but he carries Ohio and and pulls the electoral lead.

Then a month later investigations turn up that the only reason he won was because of voter fraud.  What then?

Assuming it's between the election and the time the Electoral College meets in mid-December, there is a chance to turn.  Remember, the winner of each state sends delegates who at least "promise" to vote for their party candidate.

It is, in theory at least, possible to turn enough of those voters to where the winner of the Electoral College is thrown into doubt or even to McCain.

In reality, there have been "protest" EC votes--remember Reagan got 1 in 1976, Lloyd Bentsen got 1 in 1988, Walter Jones (Dem) got 1 in 1956, and John Hospers (Libertarian) got 1 in 1972.  So it is possible that in fact enough "protest" votes could be thrown to Hillary or over to McCain to bring the House into the deal.

And frankly, if the Dems in the House ever want to see power again, they would do the right thing.  To vote Obama in even in the face of voter fraud would kill their power for the forseeable future.

[NHSparky]

As loath as I am to cite the Wiki, this has a bit better explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector