Statement–Argument — Should there be a re-election if the winner’s candidature is cancelled? Arguments: I. Yes. The elected winner reflects the will of the majority; cancelling the candidature requires a fresh mandate to preserve democratic legitimacy. II. No. It would be unfair to the runner-up who finished second and could otherwise be declared the winner.

Introduction / Context:
This item examines electoral legitimacy when the winning candidate is later disqualified. Core principles are popular mandate, fairness, and procedural integrity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The winner’s candidature is cancelled post-result.
• Voters chose based on a slate that included the winner.
• Rules should protect public confidence in elections.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must align with constitutional-democratic norms. When a central fact (the winner’s eligibility) is invalidated, the original preference aggregation is distorted; restoring consent typically requires a new poll.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I stresses democratic ethos: once the winning candidature is void, the majority’s choice no longer has a valid representative, so seeking a fresh mandate is logical and fair.2) Argument II claims “unfairness” to the runner-up. However, elections are not succession mechanisms; second place does not imply entitlement, because voters’ strategic preferences depended on the original field.3) Therefore, I is strong; II is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative practice often orders re-polls or by-elections when crucial irregularities or disqualifications arise.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge legitimacy and treat the runner-up argument as sufficient, which it is not.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming second place automatically reflects a legitimate fallback mandate.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.