If Ohio's excluded due to fraud...

[seshers]

what's the electoral college score? In other words, who wins.

By the way, this is my first post.

ClassWarrior rocks, Kerry is my pres.

[New Earth]

1. the supreme court will NOT throw out the entire Ohio election

that would disenfranchise the entire state. they would never let it happen.

it's recount, revote, or prove fraud.

[seshers]

2. thank you

sorry if it was a less than informed question

[Skink]

4. What if Renhquist was poisoned

Dies and the Supreme court comes in at 4 to 4.

[New Earth]

6. well that's a horrible thought

but in all honesty, the basis of this election is much different than 2004.

i have a feeling when it comes to the courts in this election, their decisions will be based on protecting the voters.

i am pretty sure i can guarantee that.

[Liberty Belle]

11. At the Conyers hearing, someone said Sandra Day O'Connor

almost didn't vote to stop the vote counts in Florida. I think there's at least a slim chance that she might NOT side with Republicans this time if this gets to the Supreme Court.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

44. Jee, thanks, Justice O'Connor

Thanks for ALMOST having a conscience.

Thanks for ALMOST deciding to uphold the Constitution you swore to defend.

Thanks for ALMOST agreeing to let every vote count.

Thanks for ALMOST placing the law and citizens' rights above partisan politics and personal favors to those who nominated you.

I hope you're hounded by nightmares the rest of your life for what you helped plunge our once-great nation into.

[TexasChick]

7. Don't quote me on this, but I think Ohio can appoint another Repuketard

to his seat. I'm not really sure about that, so I would strongly suggest to get a second opinion. :hi:




Edited for Freeptardian-type spelling.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

24. any lower court ruling stands

[Truman01]

46. Faye I tend to agree with you but think of this....

I totally agree that they won't just throw out Ohio's electors for the reasons you state, but think about this for a second. I can see a recount being ordered if we can prove irregularities in the count such that a recount would solve the problem. (I'm still unclear as to how you recount paperless voting with any success :shrug:).

But if we were to prove fraud or outright voter suppression ordering a revote would be unbelievably difficult even though I think it would be the only remedy. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Everyone just needs to understand our best shot is to take time to thoroughly prove this fraud and not worry about putting this together slipshod in hopes of overturning this election. If we can wire fraud to the WH * will be impeached anyway. Even with a repuke congress.

TC

[BattyDem]

3. If fraud is proven ...

that means Bush and the GOP stole the election. If they stole one state, they probably stole others. I don't see how Bush* can take office, regardless of electoral votes, if fraud is proven in even one state. Of course, with these people, rules don't matter. :eyes:

[seshers]

5. thank you

I agree that it probably did occur though out the country.

[nickshepDEM]

9. Bush would definitley claim...

He had no idea that the fraud was being carried out. Therefore, he should not be responsible.

[BattyDem]

12. It doesn't matter whether he was involved or not ...

Fraud is fraud, regardless of who the perpetrator is. It still invalidates the election. What's Bush* going to say? "I may not have gotten the most votes, but since I wasn't aware of the cheating, I should still be President."

[MrUnderhill]

25. Unfortunately.... maybe it "should"... but it doesn't.

"invalidate the election" that is.

Even if he cheated and it could be proven... that doesn't undo the election by itself. What judge could rule on that? Even the supreme court couldn't say "do over".

The Constitution contemplates a situation where there is no clear winner within the established process... the Congress gets to decide. Everyone assumes that automatically means Bush wins... but it could also mean the end of the Republican party.

[genieroze]

32. It was done on his behalf. eom

[Higans]

41. Agreed, not responcible for running the Country.

Because he is not being verry responcible with it now.

[malatesta1137]

19. did you forget 2000?

Bush went ahead and took office anyway, despite losing the popular vote and all the fraud in Florida.

[BattyDem]

22. Nope. That's why I said ...

"... with these people, rules don't matter." :(

But this situation is different because none of the Dems fought in 2000 - they never suggested fraud, they just rolled over and played dead. Gore asked for a recount, but he never accused Bush or the Repugs of rigging the vote.

I don't know what's going to happen this time, but I'm happy that the Dems are not letting it go.

[malatesta1137]

23. none of the Dems fought in 2000??

Gore at least un-conceded. He fought for more than a month. Kerry gave up in 12 hours.

[Vidar]

28. Don't forget Jesse Jackson, the truest democrat.

[malatesta1137]

31. Jackson is not the candidate

Kerry is, HE is the one who needs to stand up against fraud.

[BattyDem]

38. Please don't misunderstand me ...

I'm not trying to diminish the efforts of Gore, or Jesse Jackson, or the Congressional Black Caucus. They all stood up and fought. I was talking about the Democratic leadership and the party as a whole - they did nothing for us in 2000. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that. Sometimes on the Internet, opinions come across differently than was intended. :-)

On edit: What really pissed me off in 2000 was the fact that Clinton was silent. He was the President. He should have immediately sent the Justice Department into Florida to investigate when the discrepancy in the exit polls showed up and the information about voter suppression was revealed. It wasn't about Dems vs Repugs, it was about American citizens having the right to vote and have that vote counted.

[Vidar]

43. I agree with you on the Democratic leadership--IMHP bought

and paid for by the same corporate masters of the republicans. But isn't to easy for me, at least, to fall into despair with that focus; hence my focus on Jackson, Conyers, Cobb etc.

[BattyDem]

37. Gore fought ... alone. I don't blame him for anything.

The Congressional Black Caucus tried to fight, but the Democratic Party and the Democratic leadership walked away. How are we ever going to get anywhere if the majority of the party rolls over and plays dead? The "big name" Democrats were disturbingly silent in 2000.

Up until last night, I agreed that Kerry abandoned us ... but now it looks like I was wrong about him ... and I'm very happy I was wrong.

[Truman01]

45. The hard part will be linking it back to *

You are right, if we could prove fraud orchestrated by the WH then we could pull down the whole regieme. I don't expect that though, I would expect a state or local lacky to take the hit.

TC

[mattclearing]

8. No one wins.

You have to get to 270. If no one does, it goes to the House. Each state delegation gets one vote, if I remember correctly.

[BattyDem]

10. That's in the event of a tie. Fraud is a whole different thing ...

We're talking illegal activity; we're talking prison for the people involved. The House can't choose a winner if the election was rigged and the only reason no one got to 270 was because the rightful winner was cheated! Besides, if the Presidential election was rigged, there's a very good chance some of the House and Senate elections were rigged as well.

Fraud, if proven, changes everything.

[seshers]

14. I'm worried...

that if that's true: how long has it been going on? how far does it reach? AND are there enough honest and impartial members of state or federal governments to render a fair ruling.

I am cynical...but, I have hope.

[Benhurst]

51. It's been going on for a very long time, I fear. But blackbox

voting has just made it all pervasive. Not only the presidency, but the Senate and House are undoubtedly products of this corruption.

The ballot box will no longer be an engine for change if we lose this one.

[freeplessinseattle]

15. aha! good point about the house! now I am even more ecstatic!

[mattclearing]

36. Only in the court of public opinion.

eom

[Truman01]

47. You have to remember they are going to work within the system

as much as they can, so no fraud doesn't change everything. They aren't just going to start making up new rules. There is no provision for a revote in the Constitution even if it makes sense. The provision is for the house to review the electors and decide whether or not to accept them. If fraud was proven they would reject the electors of the state in which it is proven.

Even though much has been made of the 270 number it is NOT the magic number. The Constitution provides for the President to be elected by a majority of the empaneled electors. If 20 electors were rejected then * would win 266 to 251-1(edwards). I know that isn't what you want to hear but the Constitution is very specific about how this all folds out and there is over 200 years of law to back it up. There will not be a revote. There just isn't any precedent for it at all.

TC

[tinfoil_beret]

17. WRONG!

See Section One of Article Two of the Constitution. To paraphrase, if a state does not send electors to vote, the majority changes to reflect the total number of electors.

If only Ohio did not send electors, it would still give * the majority, at 266 to 252.

Edit: Of course, solid evidence of fraud in one state calls into question the entire election. Who knows what would happen?

[PaganPreacher]

49. 270 is not a magic number.

The winner would be the candidate with the plurality of all electoral votes. Take out Ohio's votes, and the goalposts are moved togehter a little.

If Ohio were removed from the mix, Bush would still win. However, if some other Republican states are thrown out..... who can say?

Not much time to do that, though.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Greybnk48]

13. Florida will be next..then N.M.

If fraud is discovered in Ohio, I beleive the entire election will be scrutinized.

[berni_mccoy]

16. If it is fraud, we are looking at a situation

Worse than the Ukraine.

Bush will have to resign to avoid having the country fall into a civil war.

[andino]

18. Bush will never resign

[Old Mouse]

20. I want fraud proven more than anything

but it will mean a helluva fight, in the courts and in society in general.

Bush will use every means - legal and illegal - at his disposal to remain in power. In his delusional state this could mean some measure more extreme than we expect.

After that we have the very real problem of the freepers. Even though incapable of critical or independent thinking, these dedicated zealots will dedicate themselves to disrupting any attempt to remove Bush from power, no matter what evidence of illegality is put forth. No matter what else happens, we are stuck with them for years to come, and the intellectual path they have chose is likely to make them more angry and dangerous and destructive as the years go by.

We have to win in the court of public opinion. I think that if we don't get public scrutiny on this, even if Congress doesn't certify the election he will hold the inauguration even if the matter is in court.

[marzipanni]

30. Hmmmm, and what will * wear to the inauguration?

Those splendid robes custom made for him?
Nuh-uh. Nothing but his Tighty-whities...or "Grinch" boxers at best!
(and be on another "Mr.Blackwell's" worst dressed 2005 list)

[Senator]

21. Congress has the last word.

As it always does (the 3 branches are not really co-equal).

The (formerly) supreme court has no place should a successful objection be lodged and supported by both house of Congress on Jan. 6th.

The real question is what happens then, and as it is a political (not legal) question, there is no clear answer at this point.

Even the electoral college "score" would carry very little weight at that point because, as someone mentioned above, demonstrated election theft in Ohio would cast a very large shadow on the results in a large number of other states.

Now, I have heard reports that the Dems from Ohio will be sending their slate of electors along to Congress, as the recount result is still pending. This would give Congress the easiest out. They could count those as lawful and Kerry would win outright 272-266.

I know it's hard to imagine any Reps participating in such an outcome, as they would need to. But it's one thing to stand by while someone else is having their crony friends puts a fix in that affords you plausible deniability (even to your own conscience). It's quite another to stare down the barrel of 70% negative public opinion.

Remember the failed impeachment. The Reps in the Senate were beside themselves trying to ditch that tar baby. And this time it wouldn't just be 70% thinking they should Moveon. It would be 70% of the public thinking that there's treason afoot.

And they thought they had an image problem with Gingrich around.


.

[Georgia_Dem]

26. Yeah, but that's different.

There were a lot more moderates back then. That's why ten Republican senators voted not to impeach Bill Clinton. The Senate Republicans are a lot more extreme now. A week or two ago, I saw Wolf Blitzer interview Lincoin Chafee, one of the more moderate Republicans, who stated that while there could be election problems that must be fixed, "it's time to move on."

Plus, the Republicans had nothing to gain from impeachment. They'd already lost seats in Congress over the thing, and if Clinton had been impeached, Al Gore would've become president and the Republicans
would've gained nothing. In fact, given Clinton's 72% approval rating, he may have even become a martar. But even more importantly, the Senate balance meant that if every Republican voted for impeachment, it would still take 12 pro-impeachment Democrats to acheive the needed 2/3s of the Senate necessary for impeachment. I think these two things influenced those Republicans who voted against
impeachment just a little bit.

Plus, where was that conscience in the Republican party when it became clear that thousands of Florida votes remained uncounted in the 2000 election?

I'd still say there's a small chance of the Republican Congress agreeing to overturn the Ohio theft, but I wouldn't bet on it. The best thing for those trying to do it to do is to look for some way to
clean Congress' hands of the matter.

Oh, and I don't think the Republicans will as opposed by the public as were during the Clinton impeachment. The media's preference of Scott Peterson has caused there to be not many people who know about it. Even if that weren't the case, there were a lot of people condemning Al Gore's attempts at getting an honest recount of Florida. (remember "Sore Loserman?")

[Georgia_Dem]

27. Yeah, but that's different.

There were a lot more moderates back then. That's why ten Republican senators voted not to impeach Bill Clinton. The Senate Republicans are a lot more extreme now. A week or two ago, I saw Wolf Blitzer interview Lincoin Chafee, one of the more moderate Republicans, who stated that while there could be election problems that must be fixed, "it's time to move on."

Plus, the Republicans had nothing to gain from impeachment. They'd already lost seats in Congress over the thing, and if Clinton had been impeached, Al Gore would've become president and the Republicans
would've gained nothing. In fact, given Clinton's 72% approval rating, he may have even become a martar. But even more importantly, the Senate balance meant that if every Republican voted for impeachment, it would still take 12 pro-impeachment Democrats to acheive the needed 2/3s of the Senate necessary for impeachment. I think these two things influenced those Republicans who voted against
impeachment just a little bit.

Plus, where was that conscience in the Republican party when it became clear that thousands of Florida votes remained uncounted in the 2000 election?

I'd still say there's a small chance of the Republican Congress agreeing to overturn the Ohio theft, but I wouldn't bet on it. The best thing for those trying to do it to do is to look for some way to
clean Congress' hands of the matter.

Oh, and I don't think the Republicans will as opposed by the public as they were during the Clinton impeachment. The media's preference of Scott Peterson has caused there to be not many people who know about it. Even if that weren't the case, there were a lot of people condemning Al Gore's attempts at getting an honest recount of Florida. (remember "Sore Loserman?")

[Catherine Vincent]

29. You give the repukes too much credit.

It was only 5 that voted not to impeach Clinton.

[Georgia_Dem]

33. Heh. You're half right.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00018

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00017

There were ten anti-impeachment Republican votes in the Senate on one article of impeachment and five on the other article.

[GetTheRightVote]

34. Then we take our country back and reclaim what is ours

We can not weaken now and become the victims of this systems acceptance of fraud against us, the American voter, then we climb off of our couches and take tot he streets as many other cities have done in the recent pass, we must raise up to demand our rights as citizens of the United States of American, it is our right to raise up against the evil actions of our country when they do not defend our rights, what better example of that then another stolen election !!! Frankly I am sick right down to my you know what ........... march by thousands and grow from a few like our fore fathers.

[Senator]

35. I don't give them any credit.

I'm just saying political reality might be such that they are unable to hold this 2nd coup together.

Not out of virtue, but out of fear.

[Eye_on_prize]

40. ..esp. with political fallout now having two cabinet nominees on the ropes

in one big news day (a monday) with all their tawdry little scandals flapping in the wind on MSM.

[MrUnderhill]

50. "heard reports that the Dems from Ohio will be sending their slate"

I'm afraid that isn't possible. The STATE could certify a new slate of electors... or the state COURTS could force such an action... but the party can't just decide to "send ours too!" and let Cognress sort it out.

We don't control ANYTHING much above dog catcher in Ohio.

[Yupster]

39. Congress could agree not to accept Ohio's electoral votes

Then neither candidate would have a majority of the electoral votes and in that case, the House of Representatives, voting one vote per state will pick the president from among the top three electoral vote winners, which means Edwards could win it since apparentlty some lumox in Minnesota voted for him by mistake.

How would that be for an ending?

[dewaldd]

42. No, the House will just vote for Shrub. Don't kid yourself.

They will hide behind Bush's "popular vote" win--which of course may not be real.

[Truman01]

48. See previous posts, 270 is not a magic number

All that is required is a majority of the empanelled electors. If 20 were thrown out * would win 266 to 252.

TC

[GOPBasher]

52. Bush would still win. Kerry would need those eV's.

Welcome to DU! :hi: