I get that all these conclave groups are illegitimate, because they don't *even* entail a unity of those who do not think Francis is the Pope.  That the Sedevacantists still cannot gather together and elect in unison a new pope, heavily inclines me to believe that the real reason that they can't is because we have a Pope, just a very bad one.

The reason they cannot elect a pope is because they do not have the legal right to do so. There has long been an argument against sedevacantism that, if sedes are able to say that the see is vacant, they should therefore be able to fill it by electing a pope. This does not follow. It would be like saying that, if you can see that a flash flood is coming while you are hiking up a dry gulch, you are therefore able to build a life raft in the next 10 seconds before it hits you. There is a fundamental difference between recognizing the existence of a problem and being able to fix it.
.
If you talk to the typical sedevacantist priest or bishop, he will tell you that he possesses no ordinary jurisdiction, and he only exercises his orders for the good of souls by saying Mass, hearing confessions, performing Extreme Unction, and other similar duties. These things can be justified in canon law, by various canons which state that any priest may confer the sacraments in case of necessity when a priest who has ordinary jurisdiction is not available. They generally consider this sort of thing to be the limit of what they are able to do, and this obviously does not include the power to elect a pope.
.
And also, as Ladislaus said, there is really no way to get all sedevacantists to agree on a method of election, even if they thought they had the power to do so. The problem of electing a true pope, as far as I can see, is outside the realm of human ability at the moment. But then again, it's also outside the realm of human ability for the SSPX and similar-minded people to get the people in Rome to act like Catholics either, so fundamentally we are all in the same boat, and we all are just awaiting God's will.

No, there does NOT have to be universal acceptance in the sense of all Catholics or more specifically all traditional Catholics or even all traditional Catholic clergy.  If the vast majority of traditional Catholic clergy of Rome accept the claim then it is a done deal.  It really doesn’t matter if a large number of Catholics go off into schism.  Certainly that would be something that everyone would want to avoid like the plague but it would not invalidate the election.

Every traditional Catholic group is not equal in authority when attempting to elect a pope.  Obviously a mother and father conclave in rural Kansas which results in their son claiming the Roman See is a comical farce.  But if a small group of Roman clerics met in council or a large group of traditional bishops met in an imperfect council which had the support of a few Roman clerics, then that group would have to be taken seriously.  John Daly and James Larrabee have written excellent articles on this topic.  The links are in some other thread on this forum.  You can search my posts to find them.

Obviously I know Pope Michael is a farce.  What I had in mind was something like, all the SSPV bishops, all the CMRI bishops, all the Bishops in Donald Sanborn's group (is that just him?  Honestly don't know) basically, if all the bishops who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and do not consider Pope Francis to be a valid pope.... were to gather and elect a pope I cannot imagine that wouldn't be a valid if the see is indeed vacant.

Obviously I know Pope Michael is a farce.  What I had in mind was something like, all the SSPV bishops, all the CMRI bishops, all the Bishops in Donald Sanborn's group (is that just him?  Honestly don't know) basically, if all the bishops who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and do not consider Pope Francis to be a valid pope.... were to gather and elect a pope I cannot imagine that wouldn't be a valid if the see is indeed vacant.

I don’t see an American claimant getting any acceptance at all in Rome.  Best bet is an Italian claimant.  But that implies Italian participation.  That could happen.  It would be great if someone like Vigano started questioning the validity of NO sacraments.  If he did and he got a significant Italian following, that would be a very powerful combination.

Yes, it is an absolute requirement that the pope is the Bishop of Rome.  That is de fide.

This may derail the thread but I think it is related.  Didn’t Gary Giuffre speculate that the Freemasons knew they couldn’t count on electing their own man directly?  Because if they had elected a Freemason directly, he would have converted to Catholicism and turned out to be a decent pope. After all Our Lord prayed that Peter would not lose his faith.  So that’s why Bellarmine believed no pope would ever fall into heresy.  And then the same thing happened at the 1962 conclave.  By 1978 the new religion was already instituted so those conclaves were not legitimate any way.  But both Roncalli and Montini were illegitimately installed.  That’s the only way the Freemasons could be sure their guy wouldn’t be converted by the grace of the office.  Why would they wait for Siri to be elected first before going nuclear?  Why not just bully the cardinals into electing their man from the getgo?  Because they wanted their guy to never actually receive the office.  They wanted a pope in name only.

Yes, it is an absolute requirement that the pope is the Bishop of Rome.  That is de fide.

Yes, He will become Bishop of Rome by virtue of his election. He is not required to have a previous affiliation with the Diocese of Rome.

Yes, He will become Bishop of Rome by virtue of his election. He is not required to have a previous affiliation with the Diocese of Rome.

Right, I believe that this is what Bellarmine implied, but it's been a log time since I read what he wrote on this subject.