We should have been demanding a new election since 2016 when

[ecstatic]

the collusion investigation was revealed. Every public appearance and tweet should have ended with #newelection. By now, we'd be 2 years in to getting the public on board, and the midterms would essentially be a referendum on a new presidential election. We've allowed trump to brainwash his followers with lies for 2 years, we should have been counteracting his propaganda with the truth and a solution for ending this nightmare.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. There is no mechanism in the Constitution or election statutes for calling a new election.

We could "demand" one until we're collectively blue in the face but there's no way to make it happen.

[ecstatic]

6. I know that, but we've all seen how weak our

Constitution is when faced with a completely amoral person like trump. A #newelection mandate would have been symbolic--essentially consent to solve the trump problem within the confines of the constitution, and to also make serious reforms to voting rights, etc.

[Oneironaut]

37. Our Constitution is weak if people think it is.

In absolute reality, the Constitution is useless. If you could convince enough people not to follow it, then you would be more powerful than the Constitution.

It works for the same reason as paper money - people are irrational. It works because we collectively accept it as working.

Russia wants to change this. Their master plan is to introduce doubt about the Constitution’s power on our government. A lot of people don’t like to hear this here, but the Russians are trying to influence Democrats as well, but more indirectly.

See, what does the fact that a dumbass like Trump can get elected say about our system? What does it do to our respect of our electoral process?

The Russians are actually trying to make us more rational, oddly enough, but not in a good way. They want to make more obvious the crippling flaws in our democratic process. Normally, we just ignore those, and the system works. It’s the same thing as pointing out that a dollar bill is just a green piece of paper with a design. It has a value we irrationally assign to it - just like the Constitution.

Oddly, to save the system, you must accept its imperfection. You can demand small bandaids where they are needed, but you also need to buy into the irrationality that keeps the whole system going.

[Fred Sanders]

7. True, but the mechanisms have never been attacked from within and without by a foreign power.

And the election results directly effected as a result, at least very arguably...and statistically analyzable for just that purpose.

Unprecedented attacks call for unprecedented countermeasures...like SCOTUS intervening...also unprecedented.

[saidsimplesimon]

28. No ROI

No Return on Investment as well, imo

[treestar]

29. That is true. Other countries have it, so that must be where people

get the idea that we can do it, too.

Watching Active Measures, there was a scene where a Ukrainian election is declared null and void and rescheduled to do over. I thought maybe seeing that makes people here who don't realize the Constitution doesn't allow it think it can be done here.

[democratisphere]

2. Yep. HRC should be the official POTUS.

[manor321]

3. NO

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY.

And if it did they would have recalled Obama for being black.

[ecstatic]

4. Does it work the way it's going now? With a dictator in chief with zero checks

on his power? Kids and babies in cages, and US citizens being deported and/ or denied passports?

Excuse me, but we're no longer in normal times.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary solutions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. What, exactly, would those "extraordinary solutions" be?

[beachbum bob]

5. Don't be silly, can't demand anything of the sort, the constitution is clear

[Fred Sanders]

8. The corruption of an election by a foreign power is clear. Doubt the constitution is clear on that,

or ever was written to anticipate one via a cyber attack and social media and theft of emails.

[beachbum bob]

10. It is what it is, November we have OUR say, so that's what all of us

should be working for

[onecaliberal]

30. And when Kavanaugh and company overrule your say, what then?

[beachbum bob]

32. so you say a federal election under the constirution is going to "overruled", I say walk away from

conspiracy thinking and start getting active in getting people registered and out to voter

[onecaliberal]

33. Yes. When they overturn Roe, and they will. you can talk to me about conspiracy.

When mueller uncovers the facts about how Russia stole the election for trump but republicans don’t allow Americans see it, you can take comfort that we have a pretend constitution that only Dems follow.

Also, for the record I’ve been registering people for 20 years. I’ve been knocking on doors for Janz and making calls, I’ve also financially supported and voted democratic my whole life so please don’t pretend you know what I’m doing.

[shanny]

9. Getting the public on board for a constitutional amendment

which by requirement of said constitution cannot be retroactive? You lost me with that fantasy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Even if the Constitution were amended to make some kind of re-do possible,

which would take many years, it wouldn't be retroactive. Our only remedy is to elect Democrats.

[Kilgore]

13. Ya, and I want a pony too

There is no provision for this in the constitution. So forget about it and look forward to the next election.

[RussBLib]

14. shoe on the other foot, you know the GOP would be screaming for a new election

Dems just don't seem to have much "fight" in them

[Bluepinky]

16. Yep, Dems need to be fighters, they would have a lot of support from the people.

I like how some of the campaigning Democrats are promising bold, progressive changes in policy; they are winning primaries and gaining populist support.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. So how do you propose that the rescission of the 2016 election be done?

[Bluepinky]

21. Well, for one thing, let's not fast-forward Trump's judicial nominees.

Let’s bring every one to a vote, and publicly state why the nominee isn’t a good choice (for those that aren’t a good choice).

Let’s not allow a vote for Kavanaugh until all the requested documents have been thoroughly reviewed. If the documents haven’t been reviewed, there must be a way to prevent a vote from happening (filibuster, not showing up for vote, filing a legal challenge to not getting all the documents, etc). I’d like to hear more noise coming from the Democrats.

[john657]

34. And just how would we not allow a vote on Kavanaugh?

The pubs have the majority in the Senate, they can confirm him without any Dem votes.

[mythology]

25. And the suggestion would be equally ludicrous if Republicans were suggesting it

[Power 2 the People]

27. +1

[Nitram]

15. We didn't have enough evidence at the time to demand a new election.

Meanwhile, all three branches of government are under Republican control. What's in it for them?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. There is no existing legal or constitutional means to demand a new election.

[Nitram]

19. I guess you're right, Ocelot. If the president-elect is found guilty of a felony, the Constitution

requires us to go through a presidential succession to replace him: the VP, the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Secretary of State.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. What actually would happen is that the new president (Pence, ick)

appoints another VP, who would have to be approved by the Senate. The succession is used only if the pres and VP are gone at the same time before a new VP can be appointed. So if aliens abduct both Trump and Pence at the same time, Ryan (ick) is then the president, and he appoints a new VP. If Trump, Pence and Ryan are abducted at once, then the president pro tem becomes president. Currently that's Orrin Hatch (ick). And so forth.

[Nitram]

24. Or if they are all charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and/or misuse of

campaign funds.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. But they would have to *leave office* all at the same time for the succession to kick in.

A charge/indictment is just an accusation, and the presumption of innocence applies as in all other criminal cases. So they would hold their office until removed through impeachment or forced resignation, and as long as a president holds office he can appoint a vice-president. I can't imagine a scenario in which a president and vice president are removed for misconduct at the same time without the president being able to appoint a vice-president before he leaves.

[Iggo]

22. So...abolish the constitution and overthrow the government?

[milestogo]

23. No Democrats even asked for a recount.

[FSogol]

31. This again?

Required Reading:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

[DavidDvorkin]

35. This fantasy never seems to go away

And it is just a fantasy.

[Oneironaut]

36. If you did that, though, there would constant calls for a "new election" until the system collapsed

There’s a reason no one wants to touch the way our system of government works, even if it’s imperfect. If you create exceptions to the iron clad rules of our democracy, you create ambiguity. Historically, even the slightest element of ambiguity in government has had devastating consequences.

Half of the country would not accept the new government. You would create a classic war between two sides, each claiming that their side has the legitimate President. States each declare their loyalty, and a civil war erupts.

Government is a delicate balance. It’s worth keeping it balanced, even if it means accepting flaws, exploits, and undesirable outcomes in the short term.

[aikoaiko]

38. All we have to do is win congress in 2018 and the WH in 2020.