What to do if Oval Office won by fraud?

Great Debates
1

This is really more of a question than an opening position in a debate, but I figure that the subject lends itself to GD, and it would end up being moved here anyway.

In this post by Diogenes the Cynic, he states that Republicans are tampering with the Florida election. I think that there is also a large number of Americans who believe that the 2000 election was won by means other than that which could be considered fair and democratic.

My question is: what does one do about it? If individuals are unfairly (fraudulently?) getting into office in the U.S.A., arguably the free-est and most democratic nation the world has known, and still no one is being put into jail for it, what then?

I get the sense that there is a large minority that believes that Bush occupies the Oval Office without having a legitimate mandate. If this had happened 200 years ago, would not sides have been drawn, arms taken up, and the development mass uprising?

Note: this OP comes from a Canadian, and is based upon the premise that Bush was indeed elected president under dubious circumstances. You are welcome to offer arguement that Bush was not unfairly elected, but the main premise of this thread is, what happens when a large enough portion of the populous believes that the President does not occupy at the will of the people (that there’s essentially been a coup), and why wasn’t anything done by those who believe that about Bush?

2

This is an excellent question. I see two factors here.

First is that, as Americans, the Electoral College already serves to crush the hopes of the populace for a clean and straightforward democracy. On Nov 3rd, 2000, Americans were told that more Americans preferred Gore, but it didn’t really matter because of the EC system everything came down to what a few handful of Floridans thought. I believe this had a dampening effect on people. After all, they already knew that the popular will was thwarted because of the EC. To see it doubly thwarted even in consideration of the EC was not that much worse.

Secondly, there seems to be no legal recourse at all. After President Bush was inaugurated there was nothing anyone could do. Any lawsuit about it would probably end up either dismissed or in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court already made clear who they want in the White House.

This election season it will be the same. If there is fraud (and I think there is plenty of it), and there is a clear winner in the election, any lawsuits after the election will not have any effect. Everyone knows this already. The only hope to combat fraud is for when the election hangs in the balance, and there is time to get some lawsuits through. I don’t have good hopes for this, though, as lawsuits based on fraud did not happen in 2000, even though the suppression of the black vote was being reported by British newspapers shortly after the election.

I could be wrong though. I am not a lawyer.

3

I’ve already been scoping the Fry’s that I’ll be looting when the riots start.

what?

Next time around, I expect there to be gangs of thugs stationed at polling places to clash with the rival gangs stationed at polling places.

I’m working on a start up based on this gangs for hire premise. If I can get the contracts from both sides, I’ll be able to cut the number of thugs I’ll have to hire down to two per side.

if there’s a significant impression of voter fraud, I expect there to be a grassroots groundswell of protests from across the political spectrum. I mean who is in favor of vote fraud? (as a sop I mean.)

4

The standard method for removing a President from office is impeachment. A President can be impeached for anything the Congress believes is a “high crime (or) misdemeanor”.

And, by the way, I would not necessarily classify “winning an election the Democrats felt strongly they had wrapped up” constitutes fraud. YMMV.

If your impeachment motion fails, or the necessary majority in the Senate fails to convict, then you are SOL. It doesn’t really matter how much the losing side whines - what is important is that the rule of law prevails. That’s why we have (in the US) a Supreme Court. They made a ruling, all sides abided by it, and the rule of law prevailed.

And, quite frankly, the complaints of some Dopers about alleged frauds strike me as no more than proactive excuse-mongering. I suspect more than a few of my valued friends here, despite their bluster, feel the cold breath of “four more years” on their necks.

By sometime Wednesday, we shall see if they are right or not. Regardless of the outcome, I am sure the American populace would be willing to examine any real evidence. Real evidence, mind you - this blather about “everybody knows that only Republicans cheat, and anyone who denies it is a moron” blah blah is not real evidence.

Although I am sure the Usual Suspects will make a stab at establishing “Bush only won because of election fraud” as the dominant meme thru sheer repetition, as they wanted to do in 2000 with the “Bush was appointed and the count was unfair” stuff.

:shrugs:

The dogs bark, but the caravan marches on.

Regards,
Shodan

5

Even if the courts and legislature refused to investigate or overturn the results of an election that was widely seen as fradulent (hypothetical here, I’m not getting into the who is disenfranchising who debate), I suspect the offending party would suffer in midterm elections, as the side that feels they were wronged would have an excellent rallying cry and independents would be turned off any party that blatently disenfranchised people. The 2000 election has become a sort of “Remember the Alamo” amongst Dems this year, and I think it is part of the reason that Kerry has managed to maintain parity with Bush despite his less then stellar image amonst the voting public. This backlash was delayed due to 9/11, but its still raw in a lot of voters minds.

6

As Mr. Holmes most famously pointed out, the fact of the dog not barking is sometimes the most important.

We must all be grateful to friend Shodan who keeps us alert to the persistent treacherous skullduggery of the labor bosses, trial lawyers, and anemic elitists. We resolve to vigilance, we are keenly observant.

We can only trust we will not, once again, be forced to try Shodan’s tattered patience with another droning repitition of facts.

7

Shodan, I agree with you that the rule of the law must be upheld, even if the popular vote goes the other way. That’s the way the system works.

However, you are blithely ignoring something very important in cases of alleged electoral fraud: the role that respective party affiliations (of the president and of Congress) play in deciding what constitutes ‘real evidence’.

I don’t believe for a minute that a president will be judged as harshly by his own party, Republican or Democrat. If you think that Republicans are above this, well, that’s why you’re a Republican and I’m an independent.

8

Just another thought, but won’t impeachment not be effective if voter fraud is found? Imagine that Bush wins tomorrow, and that there is clear voter fraud. So clear, in fact, that Bush is impeached. However, that impeachment does not put Kerry in the White House. it would give Cheney the Presidency. So I think impeachment is not a solution for voter fraud. After the President is in power, I don’t see any way of changing the election.

I’d love to know I’m wrong, though. Am I?

9

I have a higher - or perhaps lower - opinion of politicians than that.

If there is serious, substantive evidence of election fraud, the voters, of whom the great mass are largely independent, will react. If it is percieved widely enough that Bush genuinely connived at fraud, and that the Republicans are covering it up and dragging their feet on it, the Republicans are in serious trouble.

I am not saying that either side is above judging their own side less harshly than the other. I am saying that if it becomes clear that this is what they are doing - once they lose plausible deniability - their partisan instincts drop away and they begin to act on a politician’s deepest need - to get re-elected.

You did notice, did you not, that the Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Clinton.

If there is a genuine scandal, Bush is in serious danger of being impeached, and removed from office. But it has to be a genuine scandal. And I am not talking about a messageboard full of lefties Googling frantically for instances of accused fraudulent activity, and discarding all the ones with “Democrat” in it.

There was no significant evidence of fraud or wrong-doing in the 2000 elections on a systemic or widescale basis. Cries from Democrats that there was are simply sour grapes. The system operated on the rules agreed to by both parties, ahead of time.

Certainly Democrats, if they lose, are going to scream bloody murder about whatever they can dream up that would discredit the election results. So will Republicans, if they lose. But the notion that there is some kind of clear cut election fraud, systematically engaged in by Republicans only, and that got winked at by Bush - I doubt it. And I (and the vast majority of the electorate) are going to need a lot more than the word of convinced Bush-haters that this is actually what went on.

Obviously in a nation as large as ours, there are going to be instances of questionable activity - on both sides. I will simply disregard the howling that “only Republicans are doing, and it is so blatant that it cannot possibly be rejected” until and unless I see something genuinely blatant. Just as I will if Kerry wins and there is the same howling from the Right.

Regards,
Shodan

10

The VP won’t necessarily get the job if he too is impeached, but I see your point.
cj

11

How? What recourse does the populace have? And what happens if election fraud is widely suspected, but it is too well buried to provide unquestionable proof. Would that President likely continue to occupy his position for the next 4 years?

12

I agree with this, but I think it only applies to an impossibly clear-cut case. The question is, what happens where there is an allegation of fraud? It is naive to think that both sides will be eager to investigate. Supposing there is an investigation, and that investigation ends with no hard evidence, nothing will ever be done, and rightly so. If there is some hard evidence, but it is arguable, then we will still have partisan politics. Even if there is unarguable evidence that fraud occurred, we could still have a blame game - that is, pin it on some minor political operator. Trying to prove a connection all the way up the chain of command could take years or prove impossible.

So, I guess I’m not too optimistic.

13

One thing is for certain, this voting process is going to be more closely watched than anything in 2000. There won’t be just hindsight involved. Both Republicans and Democrats are watching the procedures inside and out. There may be a jillion lawsuits. Walter Cronkite predicted we won’t know the winner until the spring.

Of course, there is always the quirky possibility of a decisive victory.

Shodan, I can’t think of any Dopers who has claimed that it is only Republicans that are involved in voter fraud. Cite, please?

I myself mentioned the corruptness of the Daily machine in Chicago in a thread on the subject. You have a strange filter on your brain. I’m glad that most Republicans are more fair-minded.

14

I doubt it. Think of Watergate.

Nixon resigned without being impeached, because he had lost the support both of the electorate and Congress. He had been resoundingly re-elected.

And yet, a year or so later, resigned in disgrace. And practically no one defended him.

I think popular pressure is a more potent force than is often imagined. It is somewhat like some of the silly threads where Dopers claim Bush was going to cancel the election. It was, and remains, entirely impossible - political suicide, pure and simple.

It would be the same if there were any actual, real evidence of systematic election fraud engineered by the Republicans. I know those kinds of accusations are thrown about rather freely here on the SDMB, and no doubt would be if Bush had lost narrowly and this were a right-wing board. But they aren’t plausible, and it is important to keep a kind of perspective. Politics is one thing, paranoia is another. The two phrases “It’s obvious” and “He will get away with it because Republicans control Congress” are mutually exclusive. If it were really obvious, he couldn’t get away with it.

Regards,
Shodan

15

The OP in this thread contains the link.

Regards,
Shodan

16

Aw goddam contrary, as they say in Lubbock! I can only assume you are not of an age to have reached your prime maturity, so you weren’t a political animal at the time, as was I. Nixon was defended tooth and nail, hammer and tong, to the last man in the last ditch. He damn near got away with it!

Not even close, Shodan.

17

Class action lawsuit? Open rebellion?

/me looks for his Che t-shirt

18

Except that the Republicans GAINED in the 20020 mid-term election. That’s quite an effect from 9/11.

19

He just said he believed that some Republicans were engaging in election fraud. He never stated that it was necessarily the case that there aren’t any Democrats in the US engaging in election fraud somewhere.

20

I strongly dispute the highlighted clause of your second paragraph below. Surveys seem to indicate that roughly one third of the electorate votes Republican, and one third votes Democrat. The middle’s independent, albeit along a bell curve.

Also, your third paragraph below assumes an inherent conflict between ‘partisan instincts’ and getting re-elected. I would dispute this. I might even say that circling the wagons can shore up one’s base in a way that helps get re-elected. (You recall, do you not, that Clinton’s approval ratings weren’t substantially lowered by his impeachment. Many asserted that he could’ve won a third term if not prohibited by the Constitution. Does this mean objections about his misdeeds were not ‘legit’?)

It might, however, introduce the possibility that the Republican Congress had reasons other than fair-mindedness to acquit him.