I just have a question,

[Ironpost]

If we were to have a total recount and Kerry comes out on top does that mean we're still stuck with the little * from texas

[billyoc]

1. No.

Whoever gets the most votes, wins.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Do you mean like in 2000? n/t

[ComerPerro]

2. Yes

I mean, who is going to stop him? The media? The military? I don't think so.

[radwriter0555]

3. Yes. There is no legal manner to over-turn the election results.

Some other manner would have to be used to remove him from office.

[Ironpost]

6. Why can't he be impeached,

he has committed so many crimes, impeachable crimes.

[radwriter0555]

7. He can be, but it's not the same as overturning the results of the

election.

First you have to find someone with the balls to bring impeachment charges.

Considering the towers of jello currently holding office en masse, your chances of impeachment are slim to none.

No offense. I'm just a tad cynical these days.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Who's going to impeach him?

The Republican controlled rubberstamp Congress?

[nostamj]

13. well, for starters....

the HOUSE is republican and would NEVER file for impeachment

IF, the impossible happened, the SENATE is republican and would never vote for the impeachment.

[Komrade _azul]

4. Good point, is the concession speech made by Kerry....

...legally binding or is it a more of a formality that could be withdrawn? Personally I do believe that the election could be changed if the outcome of the election sends other representatives to the electoral college. When do they meet?
Let the Repukes scream about stolen elections if the electoral college elects Kerry after a Ohio win!!!!!!!

[searchingforlight]

5. I think you are right.

I believe it can be overturned until the electoral college votes. Concession is a courtesy.

[0007]

8. Hope no one is holding their breath!

Could someone please post a photo of Kerry. I forgot what he looks like.

[quisp]

9. The Electoral College

doesn't actually vote until the middle of December.

So conceivably the election could change, but it's very, very unlikely

[PATRICK]

10. State legislature

hurriedly confirmed a slate of electors BEFORE the recount challenges were over. Had Gore won a recount, there would;d at best have been two slates of electors for the House of Reps to choose from or disqualify both. They had Gore six ways to hell and back and as far as I can see there never was any hope in any scenario. The press never would, never did, give the easily identifiable winner, Gore, any support whatsoever and was more than lukewarm about the recount per se. The Congress had already been sounded out by Gore, maybe, but it was obvious no one was going to cross party lines.

For those who think some of these efforts will reverse the elections by themselves, I think the faint hope is growing dimmer since the same heavy hands are there to even more silently than 2000, quash any "win".

I am guessing we have two hopes. One to raise enough dirt to change the voting system and two, Kerry comes in with a smashing attack on the massive corruption of the vote. The first will be uphill without the second, I am afraid. The dark legend of Bush's mandate is used backward to justify even the crummy machines. defense against the challengers conveniently involves defending and praising the fraud machinery.

As such the GOP will fight all progress on these tow issues to the omega point(SCOTUS?) and beyond. Grimmer may the short term battles state by state to get fair voting and reclaim the POSSIBILITY of America. The patent incompetence of the nation's leadership and courts in dealing with computer technology is utterly scandalous. If they were this illiterate and careless on other issues they would all be removed.

At what point can a coalition gather to sue for the overturning of the election based on palpable fraud? In other nations they holler but don't often have clear and public evidence. What are the precedents for removing the legitimacy of a fixed or miscounted election in national and international law?