I keep coming across articles about what percentage of Democrats and Republicans won’t “accept” the results of the election if their candidate doesn’t win. What does it mean for a voter - not someone running for office - not to accept the results?
None of the articles mentions violence which is what I initially assumed that they would be getting at, so what does a voter not accepting reality matter otherwise?
it means nothing directly to the election - but it will mean getting past this election cycle will be all the more difficult.
For those intent on ‘2nd amendment solutions’ - well, I shudder at the implications.
Sounds like a goofy polling question, and probably won’t matter. In a worst-case-scenario, you end up with something like a Ukranian civil war if enough people are serious about not accepting the result of the election. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point.
Indeed, and separately from the question of private gun ownership per se, it highlights how ridiculous it is to suppose that a modern democracy should have an armed militia as a means to control government misbehavior.
Quite a few people “didn’t accept” the 2000 result; they insist that “Al Gore was elected President, but George W Bush was anointed by the Republican Supreme Court.” Others say similar things about 2004 (“The people elected John Kerry, but Diebold elected Bush”). Nothing seriously became of it; you don’t see anyone claiming that Citizens United v FEC “doesn’t count” because “Roberts and Alito were not nominated by a valid President, so the decision is 4-3 in favor of campaign limits.”
Then again, if enough people don’t accept a result, then it absolutely matters; tell Ferdinand Marcos otherwise.