As I have noted before, the one election result that I think is more untenable than a Bush victory would be for both candidates to get 269 votes. I do not expect that a close election will bring about civil war, but the elections in 2006 and 2008 would definitely be more partisan than this election. And that seems completely ridiculous, even if you ignore the last year and a half and focus only on today's news. In Ohio, Republicans are installing "challengers" at polling places to contest voter eligibility.

Mark Weaver, counsel to the state's Republican Party, said: "The goal of the Ohio Republican Party is to guarantee a fair election for everyone. Each time the Democrats remove an additional safeguard, the potential for voter fraud increases."

In order for voter fraud (fraud by voters) to affect an election, hundreds (if not thousands) of voters must commit fraud. Voting fraud (fraud by electoral officials) can take at little as one unscrupulous person. One would argue that in this age of voting apathy, resources would be better spent getting eligible citizens to vote, which would mitigate the effects of voter fraud, which seems far less widespread than voting fraud.

Just as ridiculous, if not more, is the Heritage Foundation's response to the possibility of Chief Justice Rehnquist having a fatal form of thyroid cancer:

Todd F. Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, said that if President Bush lost the election on Tuesday but the result was contested in the courts, Mr. Bush would "have the responsibility to consider" making a recess appointment to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

And if that failed, Bush would have the responsibility to declare martial law, shoot protestors in the streets, and amend the Constitution to extend his term.