downeykp said:
Wet, if he gamed the system to become president wouldn't the outcome be invalid? You said "decided elections", sure if they were decided fairly, impeach and convict. But the evidence could point to collusion with the Russians which again, should invalidate the whole process.
Remember that people, in general, are fallible. Even the best of people, and more so the worst. We can't ask for perfect outcomes, only "good enough" outcomes.
So to keep a government reasonable honest, we need to minimize and separate powers. The power to invalidate an election after the fact is a huge power. I see no reason to grant that power to anyone: not the Supreme Court, not the President, not Congress. Sure, such a power might be used for good. I'm more concerned about misuse. We don't need a "One Ring".
As for calling new elections, under the British system, that is a power of the Monarch. In the usual course, the Prime Minister asks the Monarch to call new elections and the Monarch does so. Exactly once in modern times, the King said no. In the case of an election that appeared invalid, the King or Queen might just order new elections, without waiting for the PM's request. In a Republic, we have no one with the authority and disconnection from party politics that could serve such a function. So we have elections on fixed schedules. Once the election is complete, next election...baring death and removal from office. See Impeach and Convict.
The power to Impeach and Convict is also a huge power, and the history of use of that power should be sobering. Only one of the three uses of that power, the Impeachment of Nixon, was clearly in the best interest of the Republic.