[ClearCase_guy]

Any candidate who demands an investigation is kissing his political career goodbye since he's seen as a "sore loser" even if there was substantial vote fraud.

Not sure I quite follow your thinking.

Candidate Smith loses the election. He cries fraud. Fraud is found. Turns out the majority of voters wanted Candidate Smith to win. So the results are overturned, and Candidate Smith is put in office.

Now his political career is over because:

1) He is now an incumbent?
2) He gave his party a victory out of the jaws of defeat?
3) He helped the majority of voters get what they wanted?
4) He stopped fraud and corruption in our electoral system?

[Political Junkie Too]

The Washington State Governor's race in 2004 is a good test case. Most think that Rossi won but that endless recounts that "found" uncounted ballots in machines in the warehouse after the election were enough to push Gregoire into the lead, which is when the state decided that the recount was done and Gregoire was the winner.

Rossi took the election to court, where they produced evidence that there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory, implying that Rossi should have won. However, the court ruled that even if they could show that voters voted illegally, they couldn't show how each illegal voter actually voted, therefore they couldn't overturn the election and give the result to Rossi.

Even if the judge were to disqualify Gregoire, that would not have made Rossi the winner, it would only have promoted the Lt. Governor to Governor; Rossi would still have to wait to run again in the next election.

-PJ

[itsahoot]

So the results are overturned, and Candidate Smith is put in office.

Sure they do, or don't you remember Bob "B1 Bomber Bob" Dornan?