It's not best of 2 - it's a new vote. It supersedes the old one, and when you lose, you don't lose _permanently_ - in any functioning democracy, there's _always_ another vote.

A vote is not a suicide pact that binds you to a decision from now, until the heat death of the universe.

> If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then?

Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum?

Voting isn't wrong.

What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?