Let's say fraud is proven. Bush still wins.

[President Jesus]

Let's say for arguments sake that the Diebold machines are proven to be fraudulent...or there is evidence that a number of state databases were hacked.

The ONLY resonable recourse is those states' elecotral votes are thrown out entirely...not awarded to either candidate. This means neither candidate has 270, and the vote goes to the House, were each state's delegation gets one vote. Guess how that turns out?

I'm not saying this whole thing should not be investigated. I am saying "don't get your hopes up." Bush is president either way.

[Dookus]

1. there's no constitutional provision

for not letting states vote in the EC. Yes, there was one time when Florida, evidently, did not cast its votes... but who's going to throw out votes if a state sends them? The EC itself can't... congress can't....

Every state will cast its votes.

[President Jesus]

4. There is no way the states would be able to certify their results...

...and therefore, no way for them to send electors to Washington.

[unblock]

9. this is a logical, but not a legal, argument

legally, there is nothing preventing a state from certifying results, one way or another, even if there is fraud proven.

the state's courts and legislature may get involved, but at the end of the day, each state picks its electors in a manner of the state's legislature's choosing.

a legislature tomorrow could declare the election null and void and choose a completely new slate of electors committed to sending ronald mcdonald to the white house.

[RoyGBiv]

8. The matter is unclear ...

The 1876 election is instructive in this regard. While the Constitution itself is not explicit, tradition and legal precedent hold that Congress essentially can make its own rules about how the EC votes are counted.

In that election, the circumstances were different, but the base issue was fraud. What happened then was that some states ended up sending two different slates of electors, and Congress had to find a way to deal with this. While what you say is technically true -- Congress doesn't have the power not to count the votes -- this doesn't apply to some sort of weird situation not contemplated by the actual EC process defined in the Constitution. In 1876, the Electoral Commission was born for that one purpose, and eventually a lot of backroom dealing went on that allowed Hayes to get the necessary votes.

What it would boil down to would first be how the states themselves dealt with it, and if that created a controversial EC vote process, Congress, specifically the Senate, would take measures to resolve matters. And, of course, if that resolution didn't result in a majority vote, it would then go to the House. Today, the SC would probably end up involved as well.

[Gore1FL]

2. If there is an issue with the electors

it is my understanding that the both slates will be removed, aas well as the elector total from the problem state. If this happened to OH, for example, the electoral vote total would be 518, a majority of electors would then be 260.

I am not sure how this works exactly -- but I believe the practice was used in 1864, and there was talk of it happening in 2000.

[President Jesus]

5. that's interesting. I haven't heard that before.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. If there was fraud that stole one vote

It's still fraud should be investigated and exposed. At this point, I accept that shithead won. But I'm tired of these evil bastards getting away with their crap.

[malatesta1137]

6. really, no kidding

Bush remains president even after fraud is proven? No way, how did you get to this truly original conclusion?

[bowens43]

7. The one with the most electoral votes wins.