The way the game works is whoever LOSES, nonetheless accepts the outcome [View all]

[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.