"If a electoral conspiracy does exists, I think the smoking gun is more likely to found in an October surprise to end all October suprises -- or, worse case, in the shape of a mushroom cloud over Isfahan -- than in a hidden line of computer code. My belief, or at least impression, is that the system is much too fragmented, and has to many players, both official and commercial, for a national conspiracy to work or even be kept secret for long.
No, what I have in mind is much more low tech, also easier to pull off and, strictly speaking, not even illegal, even though it would take the American system of goverment into uncharted waters.
My speculations were triggered by this John Fund column, which ran in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, warning (anticipating?) that a number of close races could wind up being decided not at the polls and not even in the courts, but on the floor of the House and Senate -- by majority vote.
Or maybe I should say "majority" vote, since if enough races are challenged, the bodies ultimately doing the voting may represent only a minority of the electorate. Which, for the losers, is the whole point of the exercise.
What am I babbling about here? Well, as Fund points out the Constitution gives each house of Congress the sole authority to determine the qualifications of its members
If that really is the contingency plan for a GOP defeat, it's hard to imagine a conservative clone like John Fund would tip the world off about it in the pages of the Journal. But he may be picking up rumors or sub rosa hints handed down from Inner Party circles. The planners -- if they exist -- may want to begin planting the meme that this election is going to lead to another Florida, or rather dozens of little Floridas, so the corporate media is conditioned to the idea when the time comes.
No, my guess is that the only possible appeal would be to the court of public opinion, in order to put pressure on wavering GOP members to break ranks and vote for the "real" Democratic winners. That certainly didn't work worth dirt for the Republicans back in '84, but then the Dems weren't trying to steal an entire majority, just a small piece of it.
It would be an interesting situation, to say the least, and not one I would care to see -- not unless I can watch from the comparative safety of a neutral country, like Switzerland. It may not be likely. It may not even be plausible. But it is feasible, and that alone makes it too hot for my tastes."
you'll probably have to read the rest for full context - but versions of this have been on my mind for a while. i linked to mark crispin miller's piece earlier today. and a couple of week's ago paul lehto put out an alert suggesting that the repugs might try to claim they were winning early on nov7 and 'own' the media debate - and then hold everything else up in the courts. one thing's for sure - the repugs simply can't afford to lose. and if they lose, we'll have a constitutional crisis like no other.