But as comments have said, even acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy, because it's ripe for abuse. Thus, the Russian interference has still succeeded.
This is a bit like a football referee looking at the videos after a goal and deciding that it was a handball, thus invalidating the goal. It is not an easy decision to make but better to do it quickly.
acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy
Citation very much needed. It seems you're desperately arguing towards a pre-determined conclusion. Especially if you're then equating this with a foreign government successfully installing a puppet regime.
I did not mean to imply that the population should vote again for the same candidate to demonstrate their independence. New evidence was presented to and by a high court and it's fair to expect it to be considered (for example for how convincing it is, and for what all the candidates have to say about it, and even for who presented it and for what reason).
If the evidence was serious it also would not make sense to let the election continue.
Finally I don't know about Romania, but in a few other countries in Europe, no matter what happens to that sullied candidate, these votes are not too likely to shift to the incumbent party. See for example the circumstances that enabled Macron to be elected the first time in France.
