I’m not sure if this situation has ever occurred (I’d dare say “almost” in 2000-Florida), but… are there any precedents for a candidate to office conceding the election, but ending up winning the popular vote? I’d really like to avoid “what ifs” and see if there are any cases of this actually happening and what the outcome was. Did the conceders take their offices, or bow out in accordance with thier concessions?
I ask this, because I was really hoping it would happen last night – with 24% of the precincts reporting and a difference of only 20,000 votes, one of the candidates (quite gracefully) bowed out. While at first glance, you could extrapolate that the difference may be 80,000 votes at 100% of the votes counted, I don’t see that as necessarily so. It would depend on the proportions of which precincts had reported. My state, for example, is geographically dominated by a single party, but one sizeable city is completely the other way, and is big enough that it often speaks for the entire state (no electoral colleges on the state level, I’m afraid).
So, the basis of my question is that it would be plausible for a party to rush the results from a certain area thereby making the other party’s candidate resign early. I’ll stress that this is not the fact in this particular case (although it was close), but it certainly seems like it could be plausible.
As always, t’anks.
It did happen in 2000. Al Gore called George Bush and conceded, then later retracted the concession.
Conceding a race is a courtesy. It has no legal standing. After all, it’s the voters who make a winner, not the candidates.
That’s the situation I meant as “almost.” I stayed up most of the night waiting for the results, so I admit I was getting a bit groggy, but would I be remembering correctly if I said this: the news reported that Al Gore was expected to make his concession speech at any minute. That minute dragged on and on, and so no concession was ever made.
In any case, I certainly don’t expect any laws to pertain to this – as far as an election goes, I agree that it’s the voters who make the winners, and are the law, so to speak. I guess that’s what I meant about precedents as opposed to a law.
I don’t want to use the Gore/Bush example, because some people have no concept of following certain – for lack of a better word: – traditions.
A concession speech is separate from a concession. You make the speech after the concession.
That’s why the general form of the speech mentions a phone call where the victor was congratulated.
Even so, the speech also is just a speech. If events overtook the candidate and he felt the need to retract the concession, he could without sanction.
I understand that, really, which is why I’m looking for a precedent. Some time in the past, some people were gentlemen who lived by their word. If his word was “I concede,” but he ended up winning and not taking the office despite that, then that set a precedent.
Maybe I’m muddying things by using the word “precedent.” I mean the normal, English usage, something that precedes – nothing to do with prior court judgements or laws or legislation or legal precedents.
Thanks, though! You’re the only one at least trying to tackle the issue.