No. What harm could you show that applied to you as an individual? Also, let's say you could be right and you could sue as an individual - until the election was over and you see who won, how could you prove harm? If you voted for someone that was ineligible, but he/she lost anyway, what harm have you suffered? So in addition to the issue of standing, you also have the issue of ripeness - that the issue cannot be adjudicated because the alleged harm is predicated on future events coming to pass. Unless you can show that the harm is very serious and that there are no remedies that could be applied after the fact, the courts are not going to preemptively get involved.
By the way, fraud is not a factor. What you have here is a difference in the interpretation of a Constitutional clause. If Ted was hiding the details of his birth, and they only came to light after the election, that could be fraud. But in this case, the facts are out there for the public to judge. In fact, if this ever gets to the courts, that is probably how the courts will handle it - the facts are public, and it is up to the voters to determine if they think Cruz is eligible, and vote accordingly. If they were to elect Cruz (thus indicating they agreed he was eligible), the courts would not overturn the judgment of the electorate on a political question such as this.
Yes. Good answer.
You have me convinced. I think the real damage here politically speaking is that we are discussing it at all.