The fellas in Indiana have been convicted of forging signatures on the petitions that put Obama and Clinton on the primary ballots. In the case of Clinton, there might still have been enough signatures (without the forgeries) to get her on the ballot. In the case of Obama, that might appear not to have been the case.
In the investigation, even the former Dem governor of Indiana averred that his signature had been forged.
Not being on the Indiana primary ballot might not have made a difference in the ultimate election. However, it occurs to me that if this happened in IN, is it not credible that there were other instances like this throughout the country? IL and Chicago come to mind, of course. Then there are places like CA, NY, and others that could easily have had similar instances.
It is absolutely possible that this same thing could occur with both parties. Maybe we can't stop the fraud in the petitions in time to make a difference. In this case, the whistle-blower waited THREE YEARS before blowing the whistle. However, I think that it makes a good case for requiring a form of voter ID. We should at least try to eliminate the fraud in the actual election. We already know that there are low-information voters who think it's just fine to vote on behalf of other family members (or was that tape of the lady who did so just fabricated?). It was also pretty obvious from some of the election returns that showed more people voting than there were registered voters. I think it was in FL (going from memory) where 145% of the registered voters voted; and there were other overages elsewhere of lesser amounts. If any candidate is winning or losing due to such fraud, it corrupts the whole idea of free elections. We might as well be in any banana republic.