The way the game works is whoever LOSES, nonetheless accepts the outcome

[Model35mech]

of the election.

Yes. That can be a very bitter pill and it is no doubt hugely impactful to an alternative political agendas of the loser.

BUT, the implication of nonetheless accepting the outcome (something the orange turd and other r's don't want to do) means that WE THE PEOPLE accept that the choices of those that we may have been opposed to by our side are, in fact, seen as winning (however you may choose to parse and dice that to make your opposing argument to this).

THAT is REALLY American democracy. The people vote, the group with the most votes in each jurisdiction are considered winners. Not all offices are chosen by magnitude of popular vote, although the outcome usually has conformed to this. You may not like the way electors are assigned, their abundance for your state, the mechanism used by the party to assign them, etc. I get that. I really do. You may not like the system, but that's the system and change must be worked on and paid for by those who want the change..

BUT, civil society and government depends on winners being declared. They will not always be from OUR party. In our system, where 2 parties dominate, declaring a winner also means declaring a loser

If we want civil unrest to be the outcome of elections, we accept the notion that elections can and regularly should be contested by the LOSERS.

I don't really look forward to living another 8-10 years knowing that elections will never be settled by partisan challenges and weird thinking justices.

[2naSalit]

1. And even if they can't accept it...

Fuck their feelings, it is what it is.

[Skittles]

2. if someone does not concede a legitimate election

they should NOT be allowed to run again

it's RIDICULOUS, FUCK THAT MANBABY

[FakeNoose]

4. If they tell us in advance that they won't accept the outcome

... they should be immediately excluded from the election. Their services are no longer needed or wanted.

[Skittles]

5. EXCELLENT point

I mean, WTF, this is CRAZY - this man LITERALLY does not believe in AMERICA - WHY THE FUCK IS HE ALLOWED TO RUN AGAIN

[lastlib]

3. R's have NO respect for voters, or for democracy....

or anything besides their own power and greed. Elections, when they lose, are just calls to overthrow the system.

[Metaphorical]

6. Fascism playbook

If you look at the history of Fascism, it's worth noting that most fascist states come into existence largely by subverting the principle of majority rule, typically by disenfranchisement, but also by delegitimizing the election process and its outcomes.

I have no problem with contested close elections. When you have a close race, the possibility of miscounting is high enough to make it worthwhile to challenge. However, what's happening now is much darker, involving laying the ground for doubting whether the elections aren't rigged for them to lose. Ironically, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because when people believe the polls are rigged, they don't vote, but they also feel that they have less say in setting policy precisely because they now believe the polls are rigged.

[Xavier Breath]

7. Meh, that's so 2014.