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.
It is a lot simpler when this is actually during the election and/or the immediate aftermath before a candidate is seated. And it also heavily depends on what office this is for. When someone is holding office unlawfully - not elected, fraud, or some other illegal means - then you can file what is called "quo warranto" to have a judge remove them. However, you cannot quo warranto a congressman/senator/president/vice president. Because the constitution controls.
Art. I § 5 cl. 1
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
You're not going to find house or senate races where courts have unseated a sitting congressman because the congress itself deals with that. Likewise, with the electoral college/count/certification process, it is both houses of congress that deal with choosing the executive.
You can find cases dealing with recounts, or other impermissible acts before or during the election. But for the most part, all the cases where courts removed fraudulently elected officials are outside the bounds of congress or presidency.
Its a cluster. Our system is based on people doing the right thing. We know that isn't happening.
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.
It is a lot simpler when this is actually during the election and/or the immediate aftermath before a candidate is seated. And it also heavily depends on what office this is for. When someone is holding office unlawfully - not elected, fraud, or some other illegal means - then you can file what is called "quo warranto" to have a judge remove them. However, you cannot quo warranto a congressman/senator/president/vice president. Because the constitution controls.
Art. I § 5 cl. 1 "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
You're not going to find house or senate races where courts have unseated a sitting congressman because the congress itself deals with that. Likewise, with the electoral college/count/certification process, it is both houses of congress that deal with choosing the executive.
You can find cases dealing with recounts, or other impermissible acts before or during the election. But for the most part, all the cases where courts removed fraudulently elected officials are outside the bounds of congress or presidency.
Its a cluster. Our system is based on people doing the right thing. We know that isn't happening.