Candidates Who Deny Election Results Should Be Barred From Public Office | American democracy is based on our commitments to be bound by the outcomes of elections.

  1. Also, please take into consideration as Bill Clinton (the outgoing President’s) VP Al Gore was in Mike Pence’s place in counting the electoral votes. Two Representatives raised objections and Al Gore simply asked if a member of the Senate was willing to sign on, they admitted no, he shut them down placidly.

  2. Idk, has anyone tried turning his speech over and squirting lemon juice on it? Maybe the Republicans keep insisting the Dems are the same because they’ve seen the invisible ink!

  3. They like the rules when the rules are in their favor. You won the election? The election must not have been rigged. You lost? Call shenanigans on the whole process.

  4. I completely agree with this headline. If you only love democracy when you win, then you don't love democracy.

  5. This election cycle is in peril with a stunning number of election deniers on the ballot. Here is a partial list, these people do not love democracy.

  6. One word I would add there and it is "baselessly." There needs to be a good faith forum in a functioning democracy for someone to raise a red flag if something actually happened.

  7. Yes, there needs to be room to scrutinize elections. Declaring that you as a candidate believe an election is stolen should be a show stopper, where verification takes place. Once it is verified, the claimant should be effectively forced to eat crow. This just saying it without doing anything to prove it is gutless and a whiney form of pandering. They rely on the average person not understanding how elections are secured, and make no effort, certainly not in good faith, to demonstrate how it was actually stolen.

  8. That's the Republican plan. When Republicans provably steal elections, they and the media will bash Democrats for the "hypocrisy" of denouncing stolen elections than the republicans who stole the elections. And many people will just see the accusation of stolen elections as political games, so the Republicans will just get away with it.

  9. My first thought as well. Let's not reactively eliminate any legal way to challenge an election if it was actually fraudulent. Knee-jerk over-reactions like that are a great way to reactively allow authoritarianism in when you eliminate any way to challenge things legally.

  10. I still have issues with baseless as well, what's to stop someone from declaring your legitimate concerns baseless? At certain point it becomes a matter of opening whether or not presented evidence is enough. There are times when it's obvious (like Trump) but the gray area is way too big for me to support banning candidates

  11. Issue is, we’re pretty close to some elections that could actually lead to delegitimization of elections depending on the way people vote and theres a Supreme Court case coming up that could leave federal laws regulating federal elections void.

  12. IT's a good opinion but if any rule or decision is made on this it better be worded extremely perfectly. The reason being, if/when the election literally is cheated and stolen we damned well better be able to call it out, otherwise it's instant game over.

  13. Wouldn't this also cause for there to be no recounts allowed? Would Al Gore be able to contest Florida had this been in place in 2000?

  14. Yes, it should. This is dumb as fuck. How many people in the last couple decades do you think have said that the 2000 election was stolen? I'll tell you this: that long-ass list includes more than a few elected representatives.

  15. Are we going to be saying that if the gerrymandering skews the votes to a Republican victory or if Trump appointies are caught again on camera inside election buildings or if the Supreme court decides to allow state reps to choose who the vote goes to regardless of who the people vote for?

  16. To play devil's advocate: Stacy Abrams refused to concede to Brian Kemp and said that she actually won years later. Should she be barred from public office?

  17. No it’s a slippery slope. First it’s done on a good theoretical idea, then you have a legitimate election that could be seen as illegitimate or maybe too close to call. I.e. florida 2000. Does that election make both Gore and Bush ineligible for office because they didn’t accept the results?

  18. Then fucking do it. This coulda woulda shoulda bullshit style of 'justice' we have in the USA is going to be the end of America democracy sooner than later.

  19. You mean I can't act like a child, deny the truth, throw my toys out of my pram and not attend the official events for the new guy?

  20. An honest problem I see from us on the left is that we’re now attacking every Republican as basically being Trump or an even worse version of Trump, in order to help us electorally by tying them to a weaker candidate.

  21. If you claim months before the election that you won’t accept the results, then you know cheating is happening, because you’re the one cheating.

  22. Not just barred from public office, but institutionalized. Denying objective reality is psychosis, what scientists call "full-goose bozo fucking insane."

  23. It means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of ones faculties, three fries short of a Happy Meal, wacko!

  24. There has to be a process to challenge fraudulent behaviors. Candidates who lie about election results are obviously part of that unacceptable fraud, but then again elections could be fraudulent too so being able to challenge bad elections needs some kind of protection too.

  25. They do in the case of tight elections. If you are referring to voter fraud there are a plethora of ways to detect it that has served the nation well over time. It isn't an excuse for challenging an election without compelling and provable evidence.

  26. Continuing to baselessly and publicly deny an election result long after courts have made a determination should be a crime. It's just as threatening, if not more so, to our democracy as espionage or treason.

  27. Agree. With a party that is actually trying very hard to undermind our elections and has been caught trying to cheat, I want to be able to challenge them if I feel like they won by cheating.

  28. Or at least make them stand in front of a court and if they lie or have no evidence then bar them from office and fine them and jail time also.

  29. There a lots of improvements which could be used to defend US democracy, but for now you are stuck with the system you've got. Since around 2015 we have been living in a brave new world where a fact is no longer "1) an actual occurrence, or 2) a piece of information presented as having objective reality". 'Facts' have become "3) the world as you would like to see it".

  30. My only fear with this would be that, if somehow the GOP do fully steal an election, they could use the precedent to remove anyone that didn't go along with it.

  31. Candidates? Do you mean Republicans? Because they’re the only ones I see challenging every election. Can we please be more specific in our political discourse to call out the Republicans that are denying elections?

  32. Eh. Let’s just cut to the chase. Bar all of the current GOP from holding public office. The entire party is a domestic terrorist group. Whether it’s vocally denying election results or standing by and doing nothing, the entire party should be held accountable and denounced as a party all together. Good day, sir.

  33. Sooo… we turn the country into a single party dictatorship, ban our political opposition from office and potentially arrest them, and somehow democracy wins in this scenario?

  34. Yes, in order to save democracy, if any of these people get the most votes in their elections, they should be prevented from attaining the office.

  35. It has to be challenged in good faith. These are bad actors, not people who truly believed it was stolen. It is simply a grift.

  36. There are methods to challenge an election in tight races. There are criteria to do that. This is about people who challenge elections that have been determined by a majority without any evidence

  37. Not moving on after losing in court is the problem. They can challenge and lose then move on. Trump literally thinks he won the election.

  38. Anything to keep trump out right wink 😉 everyone knows Biden sure as fuck isn’t getting re-elected and the libs don’t have anyone better… y’all scared and it showsss

  39. They can cause but once proven wrong they can never hold any office again. Not even a PTA.

  40. You say that; but when you firmly belief that the vote results are fake, you’re not denying democracy - in fact you’re being super patriotic. That’s how they justify all of it

  41. Gore should have challenged his actual stolen election more than he did so blanket statements like this aren’t helpful.

  42. My initial reaction is agreement, however with the GOP currently setting itself up to steal elections I'm not that keen on barring people from calling out real election fraud is the way to go just because Republicans want to call foul on real elections just because they lost.

  43. This isn't about free speech. This is about questioning election results, without evidence, that are determined by a majority of voters. There are mechanisms to challenge election results in tight races these people haven't met the criteria.

  44. There's healthy debate to be had about a court case ending a recount that has been shown could have easily swayed an election to a different result. No one is denying that the case happened, and counting stopped and that as a result the electoral votes are fraudulent on that basis (they weren't). The system was followed, unfortunately and that led to the result we got which was not ideal (a recount being halted permanently).

  45. If election deniers are the problem than Stacy Abrams is out. Hillary Clinton is out. I can go on if you like.

  46. By that standard, Hillary Clinton would have been out after losing the 2008 primary. And all of her PUMA cult supporters would have been prevented from voting again.

  47. How would that be enforced, though? Who does the barring? Under what law? And what defines "denying election results?" I know easy, simple solutions like this sound great on the surface but realistically there's no one able to enforce this fairly, and honestly one should be able to question elections when there are legitimate issues simply as part of free speech. I should be able to say, for instance, that Gore won in 2000 and should've been president, even if that's not the official result.

  48. Like jury duty, there needs to be mandatory poll watching duty where people are randomly selected to be poll workers during elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin