Candidates who won't commit to accepting election results should be disqualified

BartenderElite said:
On both sides of the aisle.

Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

So my question would be what if you say beforehand 'yes, I will accept the election results' and then you lose and find out there was a serious computer glitch (or some sort of mistake) in counting the votes. Does that mean you have now forfeited any right to protest? Because there are no caveats in your example correct?
 
cawacko said:
So my question would be what if you say beforehand 'yes, I will accept the election results' and then you lose and find out there was a serious computer glitch (or some sort of mistake) in counting the votes. Does that mean you have now forfeited any right to protest? Because there are no caveats in your example correct?
Click to expand...

There are legal mechanisms at the state & local level to investigate those kinds of things, or that give candidates recourse when that happens. Gore didn't "not accept" the results in 2000. Florida had rules that allowed the losing candidate to ask for a recount within a certain margin. Gore blew it by not asking for a statewide recount - but he had recourse.

Trump telegraphed ahead of the 2020 election that he wasn't going to accept the results if he lost, and we see that now with some of the politicians he has spawned. I think one of the requirements of participating in our democracy should be honoring the rules and customs of that democracy.
 
BartenderElite said:
There are legal mechanisms at the state & local level to investigate those kinds of things, or that give candidates recourse when that happens. Gore didn't "not accept" the results in 2000. Florida had rules that allowed the losing candidate to ask for a recount within a certain margin. Gore blew it by not asking for a statewide recount - but he had recourse.

Trump telegraphed ahead of the 2020 election that he wasn't going to accept the results if he lost, and we see that now with some of the politicians he has spawned. I think one of the requirements of participating in our democracy should be honoring the rules and customs of that democracy.
Click to expand...

That still isn't accepting it though. If a candidate is going to sign a legal document prior to running that they will accept the results will those caveats be allowed? And then the other obvious question will be if after the fact they don't accept it and claim someone cheated. Was is the legal repercussion then? (after the signing the document)
 
cawacko said:
That still isn't accepting it though. If a candidate is going to sign a legal document prior to running that they will accept the results will those caveats be allowed? And then the other obvious question will be if after the fact they don't accept it and claim someone cheated. Was is the legal repercussion then? (after the signing the document)
Click to expand...

There is no legal repercussion. If they lose, they lose.

As for caveats, "accepting" a defeat entails all that the election rules and contingencies that are allowed at the federal or local level. If challenges, recounts or investigations are allotted for, they can pursue those, but the end result has to be acceptance if nothing changes.

There's gotta be something. We've heard a variation of "I'll accept the results if I win" from a few candidates, and that will likely keep growing if we start accepting that stance as a country. We can't have the playground crybaby mantra of "if you win, you cheated" metastasizing in our politics. Our country won't survive a few cycles of that.
 
BartenderElite said:
There is no legal repercussion. If they lose, they lose.

As for caveats, "accepting" a defeat entails all that the election rules and contingencies that are allowed at the federal or local level. If challenges, recounts or investigations are allotted for, they can pursue those, but the end result has to be acceptance if nothing changes.

There's gotta be something. We've heard a variation of "I'll accept the results if I win" from a few candidates, and that will likely keep growing if we start accepting that stance as a country. We can't have the playground crybaby mantra of "if you win, you cheated" metastasizing in our politics. Our country won't survive a few cycles of that.
Click to expand...

Do you envision a panel who would be given the authority to state say a month before an election that a candidate has been disqualified from the race based on something said in a debate or on the campaign trail? If yes, who would have the authority to select that panel? Who would it consist of?

Using a real world example what would happen to Stacey Abrams? She's an election denier but she's denying it in a different way than Trump is. Would a panel have the power to determine if her reasoning for denying it is acceptable?
 
BartenderElite said:
There is no legal repercussion. If they lose, they lose.

As for caveats, "accepting" a defeat entails all that the election rules and contingencies that are allowed at the federal or local level. If challenges, recounts or investigations are allotted for, they can pursue those, but the end result has to be acceptance if nothing changes.

There's gotta be something. We've heard a variation of "I'll accept the results if I win" from a few candidates, and that will likely keep growing if we start accepting that stance as a country. We can't have the playground crybaby mantra of "if you win, you cheated" metastasizing in our politics. Our country won't survive a few cycles of that.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you people weren't such dickheads people would trust you more. I wouldnt trust you evil bastards with my dead dog let alone an election..
 
cawacko said:
Do you envision a panel who would be given the authority to state say a month before an election that a candidate has been disqualified from the race based on something said in a debate or on the campaign trail? If yes, who would have the authority to select that panel? Who would it consist of?

Using a real world example what would happen to Stacey Abrams? She's an election denier but she's denying it in a different way than Trump is. Would a panel have the power to determine if her reasoning for denying it is acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm a visionary. I'm not a details guy.

I don't think what Abrams did is acceptable either. We need candidates to concede elections. We can see the results when they don't. It's all fun & games to keep chipping away at election integrity - until we realize we've passed a point of no return & the republic either disappears, or mutates into something we don't recognize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top