When fraud is uncovered will there be new elections?

[passy]

And who will the candidates be? From the democrats and the republicans, please explain your choice.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Whatever you're smoking, pass some this way!

[passy]

3. Better to believe than despair.

[New Earth]

4. LOL

hahhaha.

and to answer the question, NO, we can't have a another election - there is no law that provides us with that option (at least not for a president who's already been sworn in).

if fraud is finally proved beyond a doubt, it will probably result of some people being prosecuted, losing their jobs, etc. - and at least the whole country can know the truth and we won't be called crazy anymore :crazy:

[passy]

6. Isn't there elections after impeachment?

[BlueEyedSon]

9. No.

[Branjor]

32. No

Clinton was impeached, if you remember. There were no elections afterwards.

[Chi]

39. If massive fraud is uncovered.....

You can bet that the GOP will not be in power for a very long time.
We will then be able to right most of the wrongs they have done.

[zann725]

64. The EF gave false victories to how many newly-elected Sen. & Cong.people?

If Fraud is ever proven, it'll be like Musical Chairs

[passy]

69. I know, wouldn't that be swell

I don't think repugs will have much of a majority left. Which opens the way for reforms and possibly amendments.

[davidgmills]

49. It's not election fraud, it's election coup n/t

[passy]

50. It's a bloodless coup

using election fraud. In the history of the world this is one of the most perfect coup d'état. Well planned well executed and well, no one really cared anyway.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Yes, they will be Spongebob and Buster Bunny.

Oh yeah, and Katherine Blackwell. (see below)

NGU.

[passy]

5. Oh so funny, You really don't think it will happen.

This government is a goner, I do not believe Bush will complete his term this time. But if you choose to believe that he will, then welcome to hell.

[New Earth]

7. i don't think he will

but i don't think we can legally have another election for pres. before 2008. i think it would have to go down the line of succession.

[passy]

8. That's interesting and who is in line for the big job ?

[BlueEyedSon]

11. 15 seconds with google.com gave me this. Learn to use it, its great.

* The Vice President Richard Cheney
* Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
* President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
* Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
* Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
* Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans
* Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
* Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
* Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
* Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
* Secretary of Homeland Security2 Tom Ridge

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore1 was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

In 1886, however, Congress changed the order of presidential succession, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers. Proponents of this change argued that the congressional leaders lacked executive experience, and none had served as president, while six former secretaries of state had later been elected to that office.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order again to what it is today. The cabinet members are ordered in the line of succession according to the date their offices were established.

Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

[passy]

13. Out of all of these who could end up president?

[eomer]

14. Goes down the list in order

except that Elaine Chao cannot be president because she was not born in the U.S.

[eomer]

17. Another possibility

is that Cheney could resign first. Then Bush could effectively appoint the next President by way of appointing a Vice President and then resigning.

That's how Gerald Ford became President after Nixon.

[passy]

19. Would he appoint Jeb then?

[dmac]

66. Wow! That damn list kind of makes you think twice about the

ABB slogan doesn't it? (Anybody but Bush).


God help us.

[eomer]

12. Self delete

Must have taken me 20 seconds to get exactly the same info - so I'll delete mine.

[ClassWarrior]

10. LOL, no I'm just being facetious.

Yes, fraud will be uncovered... and no, Bush** will NOT complete his second term... but no, I don't think we'll get to re-vote. They'll just go down the list of criminals currently occupying the line of succession.

NGU.

[globalvillage]

18. The question, IMO, is

How many "residents" will we have between now and '08, and how will each go down?
The current resident will likely start out by ratting out all of the underlings from Cheney on down once the pressure on him gets too intense. He can't possibly sustain the next four years without their help, and any remaining will turn back on him. That should take out all of this administration's "leadership".
That being said, we're screwed regardless until 2008. It would take more than four years to get through the list.

http://www.jburgd12.k12.il.us/jjhs/Wbt/exetopic/Esuccess.htm

Presidential Succession:
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of the Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

[ClassWarrior]

20. Oh but all that infighting will be entertaining to watch at least.

NGU.

[globalvillage]

21. Man, I've got to work on my typing skills

Sorry for the repeat. It took me over a minute!

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I'm betting there will be an outcry for special prosecutors and

demand for non-partisan ethics committees. Which means, all these attempts of the Republicans to change the rules to absolve themselves of ethical responsibility will backfire on them. So, we not only have to prove the fraud, but the icing on the cake is to show how Repubs are covering up their tracks so they can continue defrauding the public.

[passy]

16. Well It just shows my ignorance I never realized

that there was no safeguard in the constitution to counter election fraud.
Can the previous election be deemed invalid then?
Or is it all too late?

[ClassWarrior]

22. There's no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote, either.

Go Jesse Jackson Jr.

NGU.

[Mistwell]

74. It's far too late

Once the electors cast their vote, it's a done deal. There is no provision, in any way, which can undue the prior election.

Indeed, in some states, the electors do not even have to vote the way the voters tell them to vote. This even happened this year (with one elector casting his vote for Edwards).

[passy]

23. Back to the original question,"What If there new elections" Hypothetically

[ClassWarrior]

24. You mean in 2008?

NGU.

[passy]

25. You are telling me that even if widespread fraud is uncovered.

in presidential as well as senatorial elections that there will not be any new elections. Will the majority who voted for Kerry be happy to have a repug president?
Will it not lead to a constitutional crisis as it is called?

[ClassWarrior]

27. I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking you to clarify.

I think you've got one thing right, though - there will be a constitutional crisis when fraud is uncovered, and who knows what'll happen. These are uncharted waters.

NGU.

[kster]

29. I'm with

you, when there are no laws for it ,wouldn't we then have to move on common sense of whats right and wrong. Common sense says if bush and or someone cheated for bush, Kerry/Edwards should be put in.If the repugs believe in moral values.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Oh, that's a big IF.

<LOL>

NGU.

[Mistwell]

76. There IS a law for it

The law is spelled out in black and white in the Constitution of the United States. To have a Constitutional crisis you have to have clauses of the Constitution CONFLICTING. However, there is no conflict of laws here. It's very, VERY clear that the electors cast their votes on a certain date, and after another date their vote is fixed in stone and cannot be changed and you cannot have a new election. Nor is there any US Constitutional law about who the electors have to vote for. There is a check on approving a slate of electors, but once that date has passed (and it did pass), there is no further check on a slate of electors.

The check on the system after the electors vote is impeachment, NOT a new election.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the Constitution is about political parties, rather than people. It is not about political parties. In fact, the Founders of the US didn't like the concept of political parties. The "Republicans" as a party did not win the Presidency. It was a person. You can impeach that person. However, that doesn't mean the replacement comes from a particular party. Instead, the Constitution gives you an order that replacements come from, and that order is also not specifically tied to a political party. The check specifically laid out in the Constitution is impeachment for this situation. Not a new election.

[eomer]

31. I hope we don't think of it as a constitutional crisis.

With the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court and the corporate-controlled media all in the pocket of the Republicans, I really doubt there's much chance of a solution not supported by the Constitution.

Even if there were, for me the prospect of doing things that are "extra-constitutional" is even scarier than the status quo. Once we go that route we really are in uncharted waters. Maybe this time violating the Constitution would be to our advantage but do we really want to set that precedent?

From what I understand there are just two solutions that are constitutional - resignation or impeachment. Does anyone know of anything else in the Constitution that could be used?

[ClassWarrior]

45. You're right - it won't be a crisis, it'll be a triumph!!

Power to the people over the corporations!!

NGU.

[Dookus]

43. correct

there will not be new elections. There is no constitutional provision for "undoing" an election.

If the president leaves office, we start going down the line of succession. Elections are ONLY held every four years, as per the constitution.

[Mistwell]

75. No crisis - that IS the system

Yes. We ae telling you that even if widesrpread, blatant, 100% proven fraud is uncovered in the Presidential election, there will STILL not be any new elections. Impeachment is the only check on the system after the electors cast their vote. A new election is not an option in any way.

[indepat]

26. If fraud is found when a Democrat was the winner, a new election is like-

ly. No new election if a Repug was the winner.

[Mistwell]

77. Maybe for lower offices

That might be true for lower offices like a Governor, where different laws apply, but NOT for the Presidency. There is no provision for a new Presidential election. None. It wouldn't matter who was in favor of it and who was against it, I see no way even remotely possible that a new Presidential election could ever take place in this kind of situation.

[corbett]

28. Everyone In Washington Who Won Through Fraud Must Go But............

Sadly, our constitution doesn't allow for that, especially the presidency. No one believed stronger than I that Kerry won and should be in the White House right now but once January 20 came and went, nothing short of impeachment could remove him for the next 4 years.

Related points:

1) http://www.impeachbush.org

The above movement has a long way to go but when the invasion of Iran is proposed, it will see a real bump in contributions and overall participation. If you want to see the commander-in-thief gone ASAP, I suggest directing your energies there.

2) Our new despicable, war criminal AG Gonzales refused during his Senate confirmation hearings to denounce his previous position that the president should be insulated from all criminal prosecution during time of war. This, in combination with a Republican majority in both houses, makes impeachment a pipe dream at the present time. There is hope in 2007 if Dems retake at least one house of Congress. However, that is very unlikely unless meaningful election reform is pushed through and takes effect by this time next year. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Tubbs/Conyers bill in the house nor the Boxer/Clinton bill in the Senate yields sharp enough teeth to guarantee that the mid-term elections are clean.

[tommcintyre]

60. meaningful election reform is the key

"To the best of my knowledge, neither the Tubbs/Conyers bill in the house nor the Boxer/Clinton bill in the Senate yields sharp enough teeth to guarantee that the mid-term elections are clean."

Remember, it can happen on the state level too (it probably needs to occur on the state level).

[corbett]

63. Good State Laws Are Important

Good state laws are important but, clearly, they don't always work. Clean, open elections are an American birthright and fixing the problem needs to be a federal priority on the level of the abolition of slavery.

[passy]

33. So what happens next?

It is proven that * was involved in stealing the election.
What next?
He looses the presidency?
Another repug takes his place maybe his brother.
Will the American people accept it?
Will they just let their country be destroyed by a fraudulent government?
Tell what is the point of uncovering fraud if nothing happens for another four years.
I think I will tell TruthIsAll to put down his calculator, because well what is the point?
Why bother talking about election fraud if nothing will happen when it is proven?

[eomer]

34. The point is the Republicans would be discredited.

Tell what is the point of uncovering fraud if nothing happens for another four years.

The point is that the Republicans would be discredited and the stigma would last for decades. How many people can you find now who will say that Nixon was a great President?

The whole house of cards would come tumbling down - including the lies about the GOP being the party of moral values, etc, etc. This would hopefully tip the balance, bring about Democratic majorities in Congress and other favorable consequences.

Another result would be taking election reform to a new level - one with hope for a truly fraud-proof system. Right now I'm afraid that whatever reform occurs will fall short and only require the thieves to come up with new techniques.

It is definitely worth the trouble to prove that the election was stolen.


Edit to add that the myth of the President's mandate would be shattered. Bush or his successor would be pretty much a lameduck President until 2008 - much the way that Ford was.

[passy]

35. Nothing more than that!

You mean the bastard would occupy the presidency until the end of his term?
Me thinks this lays the ground for popular and peaceful revolution.
It makes perfect sense, if * has shat on the constitution by defrauding the electorate how can he rely on that same constitution to keep him in power.
I just think that the election will be deemed invalid by some means and new elections will be called.

[eomer]

36. My point isn't that Bush would rely on the Constitution to keep in power.

It's that, as much as I would like to get him out of power, I don't think we should advocate violating the Constitution.

Once we do that, we really are in trouble.

[passy]

37. So the bad guys do it and the good ones shouldn't.

How does that make any sense?
"Once we do that, we really are in trouble" by the way we are in trouble. * is driving this country right down the toilet in case you hadn't noticed and in four years time it will way beyond the U-bend.

[Dookus]

44. Even the "bad guys"

never proposed something as unconsitutional as extraordinary elections for President.

The constitution describes what happens. There are no other options. Bush can either resign or be impeached and removed. If that happens, the VP becomes President.

We have a constitution specifically so we don't have to make this up as we go along.

[passy]

48. I posted a link below about a Second American Constitution.

this is a quote from the text "When the First American Constitution was written, it rooted itself in certain principles, which principles today are all the legal precedent we need to do the same act again - to write a Second American Constitution.


We are the source from which the power of any sitting government is derived. This is first elaborated in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is stated that the only just powers of a government come from the consent of the governed. This ideal was later embodied in the First American Constitution, in between two secure bookends. In the Preamble, it is stated that: We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution. Then in the last (the 10th) of the Bill of Rights (sometimes called the reserve clause) it is stated that: rights and powers not expressly delegated are reserved to the People.

No where in the First American Constitution does it speak of the creation of a whole new Constitution, but only of the amendment of the existing one. This being the case, then clearly the power to completely replace the original with a Second American Constitution, is among those powers and rights which were not delegated and therefore are reserved to the People."

http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/prelude.html

[ClassWarrior]

46. But that's EVERYTHING. These criminals only hold power because most...

...Americans refuse to believe they're criminals. Once the house of cards comes tumbling down, suddenly we have ALL KINDS of options. Maybe even the highly-unlikely new elections you keep touting.

NGU.

[kster]

52. Why a new election?

If bush did not win ,what do we say to the winner.When the art thief gets caught does he get to keep the art? The art or (presidency)should go back to the rightfull owner. Why should the winner have to go thru another election? He already won right?

[passy]

54. You're right but....

can the certification of the election be undone?

[TruthIsAll]

41. Put down my calculator? You mean computer, don't you?

With a calculator, I could never the numbers.

I first used a calculator in 1973 (Commodore).

The spreadsheet is king, and has been since Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983.

[passy]

42. Hi TIA,

I feel honored to have you in one of my threads.
I prefer the romantic vision of the accountant who does his work on the kitchen table, with papers strewn everywhere and a little lamp lighting up all those numbers that would make a common man's head dizzy.
Keep up the good work I believe you are making a difference and keeping the hope alive.
My questions are about what will happen after the shit has hit the fan. Something that will all need to contemplate if we truly believe.

[fasttense]

38. First and foremost fraud has been uncovered and nothing happened.

The Repukes don't care and the Dems are too scared to fight back. The media hides it and the judiciary ignores it. No one but folks here really care the election was nothing but a fraud.

Maybe what you mean is when the B*sh propaganda machine has to start defending itself from charges of election fraud. Right now the media is ignoring it. But if enough people start complaining about it, then the media will start repeating the RW justifications, excuses and lies about the presidential election fraud. When just about every TV news station starts running a "No we didn't cheat" rant then you know we have hit the big time.

But this is going to take a very long time. I don't believe any of the Repukes cheating, lies and scandals will affect their position of power until B*sh's third or fourth year. But just watch out. During 2007 and 2008 you are going to see some fireworks. I base this opinion on Watergate, and the current Repukes position of power. I do believe the truth eventually comes out. But it can be frustrating waiting and working for it.

[passy]

40. I don't know but I have this feeling that he will be out of there before

Halloween.
If you base your opinion on Watergate then he should already have left the oval office.
The amount of f**k ups this administration has committed is incredible, from 9/11 to lying about WMDs and now election Fraud.
I Nixon was an idiot but Watergate kinds of pales in comparison to *'s idiocy and total disregard for ethics, morals and common sense.
This will catch up with him faster than you might think, as for the media they will turn their coat very quickly once they realize that the ship is going down. No one wants to be seen supporting a despot once he is revealed as one.
Hoping that things might change by themselves is also not an option.
Imagine what will happens once they pass Patriot Act 2 and 3, start building camps for subversives like you and me, ban all abortions, ban all non-christian literature, turn back the clocks on civil rights for minorities and of course wages wars against half the Muslim world and maybe North Korea who might have nuclear weapons.
Tell me will it be to late by then to do something about it.
These people are well entrenched they will not let go easily.
But they have to be defeated and removed for the sake of America and the rest of the world.
This is like the 30's again but this time the dictator does not have a mustache (and I'm not referring to Chaplin).

[passy]

47. For those who mentioned the Constitution. I came across this:

http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/prelude.html it looked interesting, a long read but many good points.

[Dookus]

51. I don't see how it's relevant

it's just one person's opinion piece. For now, the real constitution takes precedent.

[passy]

53. So you don't see any possibilities in changing the constitution at all.

So * can do what he pleases, get rid of democracy, why he might even make himself emperor, why because the writers of the constitution had not foreseen that someone might rig an election.
If there is no democracy (people get to freely and fairly elect their president), then there is not point in having a constitution.

[Dookus]

55. sigh

yes, we can change the constitution. There is a mechanism for doing so defined in the constitution itself. But it's very difficult to do, and rightly so.

If it makes you feel any better, the worst case scenario is we have elections in 2008.

[passy]

56. And then what?

Why do people keep on talking about 2008 as if something miraculous is gonna happen by then.
If they managed to steal this election and not to mention the previous one, how likely is it that they will loose the next one?
Tell me what is going to happen between now and 2008 that will tip the balance in the democrats favor.
In 2008 expect to see Jeb Bush being elected president with a 5 million vote mandate even if the war in Iran is going badly.

[kster]

57. I would

think thats why the mechanism is there,the fore fathers thought that sooner or later we might have to think for ourselves. This may be one of them times,no matter how difficult it may be.

[tommcintyre]

58. It's one thing to prove fraud, it's another to prove Bush's foreknowledge

Assuming enough fraud is proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have changed the outcome of the election; it is quite another thing to prove Bush actually knew about it beforehand. Without a major "leaker" (like John Dean in Watergate), this is very unlikely to happen. It is even possible that Bush didn't know about the fraud in advance (Rove and co. may have taken this precaution in case they were "found out". I'm sure they learned some lessons from Watergate.)

And it is unlikely there would be a leaker since this administration keeps a very small circle that actually knows whats going on. And those that know are fiercely loyal. (They've learned their lessons with Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke - look who they choose now - loyal zealots like Gonzales and Rice.)

And no foreknowledge equals no grounds for impeachment on this issue. Would Bush voluntarily resign in this case (or be forced to resign by Congress)? I doubt it. Politicians historically don't have the best rep on ethics (usually ranked down with used car salesmen in surveys), but this new GOP group has taken dishonor down to unprecedented levels.

So any good new in all of this? ABSOLUTELY! Election fraud does not even need to be proved to cause damage to this administration and its agenda. Believe it or not, the fact that we continue to work on this issue (and even just talking about it) is effective. What we are accomplishing is to increasingly cause doubt that the election was legitimate.

The January 7th, 2005 National Annenberg Election Survey (link below) showed that 30% of American voters were NOT “very confident that their vote had been counted accurately”. Similar surveys taken in November and December were 20%, so the trend is that more and more people doubt their vote was counted correctly.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_mindset-bush-kerry-supporters_%2001-05_pr.pdf

As this number continues to grow, it will become increasingly difficult for Bushco to advance their agenda. And all this bad publicity - and meaningful election reform in time - could cause a change in Congress in 2006. Then it will be possible to impeach Bush on a number of different issues - even if enough election fraud is not proved. And then 2008 would most likely result in a progressive President and Congress.

So we just need to keep doing what we are doing, and the rest should fall into place.

[passy]

59. Thanks for a well thought out reply.

[kster]

61. I just

don't get it ,if I steal my wife a ring for Valentines day and I get caught, and the wife wasn't part of the theft and didn't know it was stolen ,does she still get to keep the ring ?

[tommcintyre]

65. Yeah, I know what ya mean... but there is a way to change this.

For now, these are the rules (Constitution) we have to work with. Overall, these guys did an amazing job writing the constitution - considering how enduring it has been. But, after all, they were "human", weren't they? So maybe they just couldn't think of everything?

Or possibly, they were more concerned about "orderly succession", considering the times they lived in. There were no other democracies, so they may have been worried about an elected President declaring himself King, or Emperor (as Napoleon did not much later in the second modern democracy). Even George Washington was encouraged to declare himself King. Fortunately, he was a big enough person to decline. It has been said, one of the greatest things about Democracy is that it provides for secession without bloodshed. <And without appointing an "idiot son", I would add (except it didn't protect us from idiot son Bush II ;))>.

Fortunately, they were foresighted enough to recognize that they couldn't predict all future needs and developments. So they created the Constitutional amendment process. So, if the election fraud is exposed to a great enough degree, and the people are informed of it, an amendment calling for immediate new elections in a case like this would be a no-brainer.

[kster]

67. While my

wife might not be mad at me for stealing the ring so much,but after finding out that the ring was stolen in a theft.My wife, I hope would not need a constitution to tell her what the right thing to do was.Maybe once the fraud is front and center, just maybe (We The People)might have to stand up and tell them what is going to be the right thing to do. If bush didn't win and Kerry did,no need for another election, put the right winner in office . WTF

[Wilms]

62. Nice question, Passy. Thanks a lot. n/t

[passy]

68. So basically

When the fraud is exposed for all to see, no one knows what will happen.
I think it is important to think forward and try to see what the solutions to the problem are.
Will it be an amendment to the constitution, will the right winner get to become president, will there indeed be a new election?
At the moment no one knows so it is interesting to discuss it now, to have a plan of attack when all is revealed.

[Mistwell]

79. Yes, we DO know what will happen

We know a lot about what would happen if fraud is exposed for all to see.

We know for sure there will not be a new election. There is no Constitutional provision for this, and a lot of Constitutional provisions against this.

While technically you can amend the Constitution, there is no realistic senario in which this could even possibly take place. NONE. The sheer time it would take to amend the Constitution would likely go beyond the 4 years in question, even if everyone mostly agreed on the subject (which they would not).

It's either 1) nothing, or 2) impeachment or resignation followed by a replacement as stated in the rules of sucession in the US Constitution. There really is not another option.

[eomer]

70. Here's a solution I hadn't thought of before.

It's both constitutional and also satisfies those that say the only fair answer is that the real winner should assume office.

1) Cheney resigns
2) Bush appoints Kerry Vice President
3) Bush resigns
4) President Kerry nominates Edwards Vice President
5) Congress confirms Edwards as Vice President
6) Entire cabinet resigns
7) Kerry appoints new cabinet

Of course, this could only happen based on virtually universal recognition that the election was stolen. In other words, exposure of the facts to the point that even Bush and team admit it.

[eomer]

71. While we're at it,

let's get Jeb in on the action.

8) Mel Martinez resigns
9) Jeb appoints Betty Castor Senator of Florida

[kster]

72. The problem is

if this were to play out, I wouldn't have nothing to complain about.

[Mistwell]

80. If that were to happen...

I would WANT Bush as President. Because he would be so much more ethical than I can possibly concieve of right now that I would be stunned into sudden conversion.

Seriously, I know of not a single politician who would do that. They might resign, but none would appoint the opposition to their seat, for ANY reason.

[genieroze]

73. When fraud is uncovered will there be new elections? No * will

impose martial law and shoot all dissidents.

[bush_is_wacko]

78. No. The only people that will be blamed are the manufactures and

programmers of the equipment. This cannot be traced to the oval office as far as I can see. It might be possible to trace it to an office outside the White House but I would NEVER expect it to be traceable to the real players. Republicans may be indicted at local, state, and even federal levels, but I would bet money the ones that get indicted would be small time players.

The conjecture that Rove was somehow manipulating the results of this election at a computer bank inside the White House is pretty far fetched. I may hate his guts but I would never underestimate him like that. He is good at what he does. I'd even go so far as to say he is the propaganda master of this country if not the world right now. Urggggggh! That hurt! :puke:

Notice they are hiding him from public view at the moment! Maybe he is OBL in a fat-bald suit. There was that picture of him "praying" at the front tire of air force one! LOL!