I'm no expert, but I think it matters because once you concede, you have agreed that you lost, and therefore lose any right to challenge the results legally. By not conceding, Trump can maintain the narrative that he indeed won, and the door for legal challenges stays open.
The thing that kind of loses me here is say you concede because you felt you lost a fair election, then a few days later absolutely massive evidence comes out that your opponent cheated. "Sorry bro you conceded"? Of course this assumes that some action is taken to remedy the fraud, why would conceding matter at this point? You only conceded when you thought it was fair, the terms you conceded under did not exist in reality. Everybody here always says fraud vitiates everything, does it or does it not? Gotta pick one here. If it vitiates everything then conceding doesn't matter at all because the entire election is null and void anyways, the fact that you actually won doesn't matter. If it doesn't then once again conceding has absolutely no meaning because whether or not they cheated wouldn't change the outcome of the election, thus there would be no reason to ever contest it as there isn't anything to contest at that point, even if fraud is proven "so what? Done is done."
I have a memory from when I was in MN that there was a ballot stuffing incident. It was a local either in Minneapolis or LaCross, Wisconsin. This would be the late 70s, early 80s. Since I lived it I never recorded the incident specifically, didn't know I'd have to recount it decades later to some pede on the Internet. 😁
Anyways, IIRC it was election fraud, yes. The votes did not count and the cheating side then lost. This was after a concession from the true winner, and it took lawyers and judges to resolve.
I'm sure if we started digging through historical court rulings we'd find just and unjust rulings going both ways, however.
By and large, even with a concede I have an impression that stolen elections, once proved are overturned and 9/10 times the candidate or his family was involved and there was jail time. This is not a new thing to American history. However, fraud at the governor or federal level is so much more serious, and so much more rare (at least to the public eye), it is a bigger deal, and there really isn't precedence (legal term) on how to remedy it. Courts rely heavily on case history to make decisions. They don't like making decisions without reference at all as it creates new standing.
Isn't needed, it's common sense. You don't hold up the whole country just because someone isn't willing to give up. That is, in part, why the Victor isn't sworn in immediately, to give a small window for evidence to shone.
No but court precedence and case law suggest that a court would take a concession as evidence in a hearing. I think thats all that the concession would do, yet very important.
It is inconsequential. Not conceding is so the media can't run clips of the concession and act like he's insane for disputing it after agreeing with it.
No court is dealing with this. Ever. They don't have purview in this realm. If it is ever dealt with, it will be done via congress. The judiciary is not involved in the selection of the executive.
Conceding is bowing out, or quitting, regardless of reason, like saying "I'm done here" and walking away. Regardless of anything or any reason else, you've thrown in the towel, and are forfeiting further claim on victory, regardless of potential future outcomes.
There are several legal cases where a recount overturned a race, but the person who actually won had already conceded, so the court ruled the recount was moot. Conceding is dropping out.
My reference is personally seeing recounts from other elections I've lived through, so I don't have fast, easy references at my fingertips. When I was in Alaska there was a close race. Early on the count was ridiculously one sided, so the losing candidate conceded early to save face and throw support behind the opponent (either one was a good choice at the time). Later in the evening they released the updated count and he had actually pulled ahead. They kept counting as the news of the concession was late, and when they found out they announced they were taking back the concession and the counting should continue. The other side said no, you gave up already.
Went to court and it pretty much came out there that if you concede, the count doesn't really matter, at least not in that state because you gave up and quit.
I think it was mid/late 80s when it happened. Regardless, you are right, I'm sure if we researched it every state has those stories through history.
But I also think this point is over exaggerated, as you don't have to concede to lose.
Not conceding could matter in a situation where the winner is disqualified for, say, excessive fraud.
I'm no expert, but I think it matters because once you concede, you have agreed that you lost, and therefore lose any right to challenge the results legally. By not conceding, Trump can maintain the narrative that he indeed won, and the door for legal challenges stays open.
This is correct. By not conceding, you leave the slim possibility that results may still yet be challenged.
The thing that kind of loses me here is say you concede because you felt you lost a fair election, then a few days later absolutely massive evidence comes out that your opponent cheated. "Sorry bro you conceded"? Of course this assumes that some action is taken to remedy the fraud, why would conceding matter at this point? You only conceded when you thought it was fair, the terms you conceded under did not exist in reality. Everybody here always says fraud vitiates everything, does it or does it not? Gotta pick one here. If it vitiates everything then conceding doesn't matter at all because the entire election is null and void anyways, the fact that you actually won doesn't matter. If it doesn't then once again conceding has absolutely no meaning because whether or not they cheated wouldn't change the outcome of the election, thus there would be no reason to ever contest it as there isn't anything to contest at that point, even if fraud is proven "so what? Done is done."
See also my reply to u/AllowMeToExplain.
I have a memory from when I was in MN that there was a ballot stuffing incident. It was a local either in Minneapolis or LaCross, Wisconsin. This would be the late 70s, early 80s. Since I lived it I never recorded the incident specifically, didn't know I'd have to recount it decades later to some pede on the Internet. 😁
Anyways, IIRC it was election fraud, yes. The votes did not count and the cheating side then lost. This was after a concession from the true winner, and it took lawyers and judges to resolve.
I'm sure if we started digging through historical court rulings we'd find just and unjust rulings going both ways, however.
By and large, even with a concede I have an impression that stolen elections, once proved are overturned and 9/10 times the candidate or his family was involved and there was jail time. This is not a new thing to American history. However, fraud at the governor or federal level is so much more serious, and so much more rare (at least to the public eye), it is a bigger deal, and there really isn't precedence (legal term) on how to remedy it. Courts rely heavily on case history to make decisions. They don't like making decisions without reference at all as it creates new standing.
I don’t see anything in the constitution saying a new president can be sworn in without a concession. Just saying.
Isn't needed, it's common sense. You don't hold up the whole country just because someone isn't willing to give up. That is, in part, why the Victor isn't sworn in immediately, to give a small window for evidence to shone.
No. It was not immediate because people had to travel from places like southern georgia to washington dc by horse. In the middle of winter.
No but court precedence and case law suggest that a court would take a concession as evidence in a hearing. I think thats all that the concession would do, yet very important.
It is inconsequential. Not conceding is so the media can't run clips of the concession and act like he's insane for disputing it after agreeing with it.
No court is dealing with this. Ever. They don't have purview in this realm. If it is ever dealt with, it will be done via congress. The judiciary is not involved in the selection of the executive.
Except many local judges stepped out side their purview and changed election law unconstitutionally.
No but Killary never conceded either.
Dead people can’t concede 🙃
That's just wrong, she conceded before all the results were even in lol
Don't you remember she called Trump and did it?
Conceding is bowing out, or quitting, regardless of reason, like saying "I'm done here" and walking away. Regardless of anything or any reason else, you've thrown in the towel, and are forfeiting further claim on victory, regardless of potential future outcomes.
There are several legal cases where a recount overturned a race, but the person who actually won had already conceded, so the court ruled the recount was moot. Conceding is dropping out.
I'm not saying you're wrong...there has been a court that has ruled something on just about anything. But I am deeply skeptical of that claim.
I agree with you, you shouldn't take random person on the Internets word for gospel, like ever.
See my reply to u/gaterop further down too.
My reference is personally seeing recounts from other elections I've lived through, so I don't have fast, easy references at my fingertips. When I was in Alaska there was a close race. Early on the count was ridiculously one sided, so the losing candidate conceded early to save face and throw support behind the opponent (either one was a good choice at the time). Later in the evening they released the updated count and he had actually pulled ahead. They kept counting as the news of the concession was late, and when they found out they announced they were taking back the concession and the counting should continue. The other side said no, you gave up already.
Went to court and it pretty much came out there that if you concede, the count doesn't really matter, at least not in that state because you gave up and quit.
I think it was mid/late 80s when it happened. Regardless, you are right, I'm sure if we researched it every state has those stories through history.
Not conceding means he could be reinstated into office say by a military tribunal.
I don't believe that is a plausible remedy. A plausible remedy is a new election in that situation though.