>>15368213 (lb)
I think 11.3 is more along the lines of the general societal structure not being able to provide a normally functioning way of life.
In the current situation in the US, then, say the military is aware that Brandon is not properly elected according to recent tradition, rather appointed. It was a political decision to appoint him. if the daily life of the US proceeds normally, and the US populace acquiesces to the new rule, then the military has no obligation to step in to a domestic political situation. They are responsible solely for defense from foreign invasions.
If the fabric of society dissolves, the military can step in, because the political framework has failed in it's duty to maintain order.
My hunch is that, bottom line, no popular vote is necessary to appoint a president. I think it may be, constitutionally, somewhat akin to the way Senators were appointed. The tradition arose to allow citizens to vote for their choice of whom the electors should vote for, but it may not be constitutionally required. That's why the court cases, all the way to the SC, got nowhere, perhaps.
IOW, a rebellion of portions of the society can be put down by the occupying government's police, or military allotted to them, but a situation where all of society just stops functioning is different. There's a different level of military responsible for that situation. If so, the best recourse for change would be for the populace to drop out rather than act out violently. The occupiers have to lose control of daily life operation.