After Trump, we'll need new elections

To the editor:

Here’s a hypothetical situation: An infamous dictator overseas wins an election marked by outrageous fraud at every polling place. The United States denounces the election. Bowing to intense pressure, the dictator steps down, and his second-in-command takes over. 

Would the United States congratulate the successor and rejoice in the new outcome? Or would we call for new elections?

Here’s another hypothetical situation: After Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, evidence of massive fraud in every polling place comes to light, along with overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in the electoral process. Clinton resigns. 

Would the Republicans welcome Tim Kaine as the new president, or would they call for new elections?

Here’s the all-too-real situation we are in now: Various investigations point to interference by the Russians in the 2016 presidential election, with an overwhelming amount of evidence emerging that leaves little doubt that Trump owes his Electoral College victory in large part to that interference. Trump may be impeached, or may even resign.

Should we then accept the ascension of Mike Pence to the presidency when it is possible, if not probable, that he was aware of nefarious activities involving the Russians during the campaign and afterward?

It is screamingly apparent to me that, while unprecedented, that situation would call for a new nationwide presidential election, with the names of new candidates on the ballot.

MIRIAM HELBOK