Legal "assassinations": Crazy enough to work?

Well, someone could go to jail to remove the Manchurian candidate from office.

The citizens wouldn't need to know they would just need to be in constant communication with those in the Japanese embassy

This assumes two things

1. Whites are just as willing to be kamikazes as the Japanese, I think WW2 is a hint as to how true that is

2. That this isn't well timed and no immediate takeover that can subvert the rule of law occurs. Once they have complete power then it's over. Maybe you could offset this with lifetime judge appointments that can overrule decisions but then you are back to a bunch of the swamp just taking olup for each other and nobody ever gets removed. 

Not in general. A party/community will use code words to indicate that they're threatening.

It happens right now and it would happen even more when there is a 100% chance of success.

So suppose a certain group calls themselves zeta.

They have about a hundred thousand members spread relatively evenly throughout the country. They can't win any elections, but they have a very high 'radicalization' quotient, that is most of them are convinced that they are being brutally oppressed and 10% of them are willing to go to prison to change things. If assassination would change things instead of turning the public against them, they would certainly assassinate.

If you think such a group is unrealistic, I beg to differ, I think there are 20 such groups right now.

That's 10,000 vetos in their arsenal, and they have no way to win elections.

They don't need to convince the public or a party or even the candidate lineup. All they need to do is convince the current leader that someone in their group will take them out.

So they will use weasel words, dog whistles, and coded language.

"If you don't, people will not stand for it" (wink wink nudge nudge)

"This is intolerable, it's worse than life in prison" (wink wink nudge nudge)

You can't throw anybody who uses such language in prison, and even if you did; that means they can use that power to protect a candidate. Want someone to be immune from "assassination"? Just threaten to "assassinate" them.

You think you can lineup 10,000 candidates and not one would give in? That is absurd. The only reason they might not give in would be because they know if they did, somebody else would "assassinate" them because you can't make everybody happy (so long as somebody is irrational).

Then it's not a game between the candidate and the public, it's a game between the groups that hate each other's policies, a game of sacrifice, and we know what that game looks like: it's called war.

Politics is war by other means and this is form of war that gives the advantage to those most convinced that they're right, not the unselfish.

They say homicide is intent plus opportunity.

I’m going to guess there are a couple thousand people in the entirety of the US who would assassinate a politician when given a golden opportunity. The thing is, they never get the chance, often due to their own insanity that (thankfully) causes them to get in their own way, but also due to the intense security every politician has protecting them. Yes the occasional close call happens, but usually they are shut down before the would-be assassin can actually harm anyone. Knowing this, a lot of the wackos that are thinking of assassinating a politician tend not to even try. So the mere presence of security an active defense of its own.

But the idea you have proposed circumvents that. All some wacko needs to do is file a paper on whatever day they feel motivated enough to do so. The opportunity is right there for the taking, plus the punishment is less harsh, removing a key disincentive.

I can imagine some desperate bum deciding to blame all their problems on the system and just filing a paper. Not only could they remove a (relatively) decent politician from office, but they could do so while getting to enjoy free meals and healthcare from the state.

Situations like those are why this is not a good idea.

Instead, we need to get voters to actually put voting pressure on politicians to adopt some new policies. I’ll give a couple good ideas to start:

-Rid the election system of ballot limitations that perpetuate the two-party system

-No more stock trading for the immediate families of national and state level politicians.