|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/03/04 - 16:40 Post subject: Conceding question
OK, totally hypothetical here, so let's be clear. But since we probably won't get a chance to talk about this again I'd like your opinions. It was an interesting lunch discussion today at work.
Any election, any candidate: One candidate concedes, but upon final tabulation of the ballots, it turns out they actually won by a small margin.
Are they honor bound by their original concession or does the will of the people outweigh that?
Would your answer change if you really favored one candidate over the other?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 16:42 Post subject:
If it turns out they won, my thought process is that they should be declared the winner. Technically the votes aren't final until they are certified.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 16:45 Post subject:
I would agree with Cappy. If the voters decided that a canidate won, despite the canidate graciously backing out, he should be the winner.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 16:45 Post subject:
I think the will of the people overrules a concession speech. Semi-related, I don't think a candidate should concede if the outcome may be in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 16:49 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | I don't think a candidate should concede if the outcome may be in doubt. |
I think a concession was made, despite doubt, in an attempt to unify a highly divided country. I give props for that effort. I think the concession was made as well to not look like a sore loser, either, so that a run could be attempted once again in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 17:07 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
I think the concession was made as well to not look like a sore loser, either, so that a run could be attempted once again in 2008. |
But that would imply that anyone would remember what he said back in '04, and I don't think anyone will.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 17:11 Post subject:
Funny, the two guys I was discussing this with at lunch, even in the hypothetical, thought that if you concede, you're done, much like a sporting event. I would tend to agree with Cappy and the others that the final outcome outweighs the concession.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 17:21 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
But that would imply that anyone would remember what he said back in '04, and I don't think anyone will. |
I'm sure he'll remind us over and over if he decides to run again. 
Although I agree with Pug, I don't think a candidate should concede if the outcome is that much in doubt, so that we don't have this issue.
And since we're talking strictly in hypotheticals, I think that the popular vote should determine the final outcome if they can't get the electoral college process to work. But I've always thought that the actual popular vote numbers should mean more than they do. To me, that's the real indicator, no?
Last edited by genie on 11/03/04 - 17:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Pebbles
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 2947
Location: Bedrock
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 17:21 Post subject:
| kattzoo wrote: | | I would agree with Cappy. If the voters decided that a canidate won, despite the canidate graciously backing out, he should be the winner. |
 votes are what's important, not who said what...
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 17:31 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
I think a concession was made, despite doubt, in an attempt to unify a highly divided country. I give props for that effort. I think the concession was made as well to not look like a sore loser, either, so that a run could be attempted once again in 2008. |
i disagree with the last part, kerry is done...at least as far as presidential politics...his '08 endorsement will carry about as much political weight as gore's december/january endorsement of howard dean...
---
megawill
|
|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/03/04 - 20:46 Post subject:
I've actually seen it happen in a Texas House race. Under the law, it doesn't matter who says what; whoever the voters choose wins. I mean, if someone can say "I lose" and the votes do not count and everybody abides by their wishes, what is the converse? That someone can say "I win."
The canidates do not have the authority to decide if they have won or lost, only the people. So if you jump the gun on a concession and you actually win, you get the office plus a hell of a good story to tell.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 08:26 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
I think a concession was made, despite doubt, in an attempt to unify a highly divided country. I give props for that effort. I think the concession was made as well to not look like a sore loser, either, so that a run could be attempted once again in 2008. |
I think the concession was made because there is no doubt. If there was an iota of a chance of pulling this out, Kerry would not have conceded. I also think he did a pretty decent job of it in an effort to unify and not look like a sore loser like you said.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 08:39 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | But that would imply that anyone would remember what he said back in '04, and I don't think anyone will. |
They may not remember what he said, but they'd remember how he said it. I still remember what a whiny brat Gore sounded like.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 08:48 Post subject:
A concession is not a legally binding statement or oral contract. So if a conceder (if that's not a word, it is now, and remember who created it!) turns out they were pre-mature in their statement, they should not be faulted for accepting the final outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/04/04 - 10:11 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | A concession is not a legally binding statement or oral contract. So if a conceder (if that's not a word, it is now, and remember who created it!) turns out they were pre-mature in their statement, they should not be faulted for accepting the final outcome. |
I prefer concessioneer, and I agree.
|
|
|
|
