>>12314738Demonstrating that fraud happened somewhere isn't all that useful. If the specific votes that were entered fraudulently cannot be identified, there's not much that can be done because there's no way to know which candidate benefited how much from the fraudulent ballots. A re-vote would be unprecedented and is unlikely to happen. The most that could possibly happen is declaring the vote totals in states with fraud to be invalid. It would then be up to the legislature in those states who would get their electoral vote. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2000 when it was ruled that state legislatures are ultimately in control of the assignment of electors.
Republicans currently control the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Democrats have Nevada. If the vote in any of those contested states was declared invalid, the legislature would decide who are the electors for the electoral college.
The big question is, would the Supreme Court actually declare an entire state's vote to be invalid? The only time I can remember this happening was in Alabama in 1986 when the state supreme court overturned the Democratic primary for governor because Republicans voted for the winner. The result was that the electorate was so outraged, they elected the first Republican governor in over a century. Courts overturning election results have to be very careful to not end up making the public think they were robbed of their vote.
