Would it be a GOOD thing if at least one SOS refused to certify election results?

[eppur_se_muova]

If one honest, competent Sec. of State decided that there was too much suspicious activity with the apparent intent to alter the outcome of the vote, and thereby refused to certify the results, what would happen? What would the state's delegation to the Electoral College do? Would they abstain, vote 'present', or split the vote? Would they be given directions by the Governor of the state? If they declined to follow directions -- from whomever -- would they be doing the right thing or not? And how would voters react?

Of course, I want Obama to get enough votes in the EC to win. But he is probably going to win a large enough margin that he wouldn't be hurt by one or two states not casting votes in the EC. Thinking about the above questions, I feel that it might actually get lots of people pissed off -- and therefore *involved* -- in a way that nothing else has done so far. Too many people just don't believe election fraud can happen in this country, and it's not being talked about nearly enough in the M$M. Nor does the blogosphere encompass enough of the voting public. Having a few million people told that their votes don't count because an accurate count was thwarted by chicanery might lead to a few (at least virtual) tar-&-featherings. (Some of the rats responsible have already been chased out of office -- as in OH -- but there needs to be an impetus to prosecute, not just push to them to the sidelines until the next election.)
Maybe, finally, there would be enough clamor for reform to force real action.