What’s that got to do with the OP?
I’d want a re-do, but from the start of the entire process. If we’re assuming we can do whatever we want here, put Obama back in office for 18 months and start the primaries again, with any candidates who wish to enter.
After all, if there has been rigging it happened in the primaries as well as the general.
We can do a condensed version since 18 months might be too long. Maybe something like his:
Next 2 months: candidates from both parties announce and begin fundraising, campaigning, etc.
April-June: state primaries and caucuses
July-November: new Presidential campaign
November Election day: normal election day, except President is on the ballot.
January 2018: inauguration of new President, now Obama gets to go home.
If the US Constitutions doesn’t have a mechanism to deal with a case of proven election fraud then you need to amend the Constitution.
Yes, but not that’s not issue here. You could well have a workable majority which was delivered as a consequence of, in spite of, or be unaffected by fraudulent elections.
Other jurisdictions will have different mechanisms and nuances but to illustrate, the current Australian Federal Government holds a single seat majority.
Were there to be questions raised as to the conduct in any electorate the case would be heard by the Court of Disputed Returns, which is in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.
The court would hear the case and determine whether the declared result was upheld, or reversed (the least likely result) or that a new election to be held. Also if proven there’d probably be a referral to another court for criminal prosecutions.
A by-election could be held in a min 40 days (max 75). During this time the government would continue as is. If the seat in question was LIB then it’s a hung parliament. If, as a result of the by-election a LAB candidate won, then LAB would hold a single seat majority, Turnbull would resign and Shorten would be sworn in as 30th Prime Minister. LIBs win then Turnbull’s government continues.
It would be argued in the Court, and more so if there were a number fraudulent elections, that given existing balance of numbers in parliament that a general election should be held. I’m not a constitutional lawyer but my assessment is this would fail. But if was then the GG would issue writs, government would go into caretaker mode, the campaign and election held and the elected government in place within a few weeks.
Throughout this period national governance would be maintained and the chances of nationwide civil disturbances would be minimal.
Because if different candidates were allowed to run in the do-over election, it might make a difference in some people’s opinions. It wasn’t stated in the OP that the rules, of at least some rules, didn’t apply to the do-over.
I think I stated exactly which hypotheticals were valid in this exercise. Putting forth a hypothetical situation is not the same thing as totally “suspending reality”(whatever that means). If you want to start another hypothetical involving Obama running for a third term you are welcome to do so.
This was my initial reaction to your question, as well. I don’t believe the election was rigged (as in, actual votes were faked) and I’d desperately love a do-over.
But on reflection, I think that would break our nation.
I’ve been fantasizing about an impeachment. The man is probably a Russian agent, after all. And that’s a much better outcome than a “do over”. If we could somehow impeach Pence as well as Trump (and if there were proof the election was rigged, that would be reasonable) I’d be thrilled to do that, too.
Do we start from the primaries (3 Democrats, 16 Republicans), or the general election? I wouldn’t want to see a Hillary vs. Trump Part II.
Constitutionally, does this give us President Paul Ryan?
I don’t see it in the poll question and seems vaguely defined, but ok. It’s allowed. But what are the rules since we are just making all of this up? Just Clinton verse Trump again, or allow anyone to run? Would we have to go through all of THAT again? Who is the president in the mean time? Obama? Trump? Pence? Or someone else in the succession?
It’s just a bad idea, regardless. It would set a bad precedence. Impeachment is the way to go, not a do-over election of some type. If indeed Trump suborned the election process then impeach his ass and get him out of there. If Pence colluded as well, impeach him too and go with the next in line, Paul Ryan. Or the next, Orrin Hatch…
See post #22. Same two candidates as general election.
Already addressed in post #22-redo of general, same two candidates.
Ok, I missed that one. I guess let’s pretend as well that we get some sort of care taker president (or just reset the board and Obama steps back in as President…hey, wait. Can we keep him if we promise to feed and water him for the next 4 years???).
If Trump is found to have suborned the election, why would we let him run again? If he hasn’t then why are we going through this? It doesn’t make sense to me, either way. I’ll just stick with my no-do-over stance, since I don’t see any rational reason to have a do-over election. If we find out it was in fact rigged then impeachment seems to be the best mechanism to get rid of the asshole.
You have to clean up after him. :dubious: