Elections - what's the actual function of "conceding defeat"?

[ExtraSlow]

So this Roy Moore stuff in Alabama has got me thinking. What's the actual function of formally conceding defeat? I assume they still count all the ballots and if there is an error or confusion they could even still do a recount, couldn't they? No matter what, the person with the most votes wins right?

Relevant article : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346121

Or does the act of verbally saying that you conceded mean that the election is over and no matter what the final count says your competition wins?

Is this some kind of gentlemanly good manners bullshit?

So confused.

[D'z Nutz]

Okay so I'm not the only one wondering this!

[JRSC00LUDE]

My assumption has always been that yes, it's to avoid the delay and expense of a recount.

In this case though, I totally agree with Roy Moore. If Jebus can turn water into wine then God most certainly can apply his will to change a few ballots.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this some kind of gentlemanly good manners bullshit?

Sort of, except I wouldn't say it is bullshit. Democracy runs on us, the people, BELIEVING it is legitimate. When politicians go nicely off into the sunset, its assumed that they don't believe there were any problems, everyone agrees the election was truthful and not compromised.

Conceding is more to do with validity of the election then the actual count itself. In this specific case, while I believe Moore truly (and rightfully) lost, there are certainly some discrepancies that seem out of place. But also, a recount usually isn't mandatory unless results are really close (don't know what they are in the USA). That doesn't mean a recount can't be requested.

[Tik-Tok]

Moore just wants to see some underage volunteers recounting the vote while he watches them.

[BigDL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sort of, except I wouldn't say it is bullshit. Democracy runs on us, the people, BELIEVING it is legitimate. When politicians go nicely off into the sunset, its assumed that they don't believe there were any problems, everyone agrees the election was truthful and not compromised.

Conceding is more to do with validity of the election then the actual count itself. In this specific case, while I believe Moore truly (and rightfully) lost, there are certainly some discrepancies that seem out of place. But also, a recount usually isn't mandatory unless results are really close (don't know what they are in the USA). That doesn't mean a recount can't be requested.

it is automatic if the margin of victory is below 0.5%

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My assumption has always been that yes, it's to avoid the delay and expense of a recount.

Pretty much.

Specifically by pushing for a recount it delays the certification of the election. By delaying the certification it delays when Jones can actually be a Senator, which therefore delays when he can vote in the Senate (and this is a big tipping point as Pence had to break more ties than you'd expect with a majority Senate).

So best case scenario is the recount actually has him winning, worst case it delays a Democrat from being able to vote in the Senate.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's the actual function of formally conceding defeat?

If you don't, we are basically saying a) you are a sore loser and b) there is a problem with the system.

Unless you are sure that you could win confidently on a recount, you really don't want to waste tax payers and party's money to drag it out.

Also there is better chance to come back to the fight next time if you bow out gracefully.

[Gestalt]

My family in the US says that Democrats winning Alabama is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Only with a less then 0.5% margin is there a recount. I think old pervert would have to apply and pay for a recount on his own since he lost by 1.5

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My fmaily in the US says that Democrats winning Alabama is one of the signs of the apocelipse.

Only with a less then 0.5% margin is there a recount. I think old pervert would have to apply and pay for a recount on his own since he lost by 1.5

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

it is automatic if the margin of victory is below 0.5%

I think it's 1% in Alabama.

EDIT: Nevermind. It's .5%

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's 1% in Alabama.

EDIT: Nevermind. It's .5%

23000 votes were write in. Most likely all are Republicans who doesn't want to support Roy Moore. More than enough to make the difference and Moore a win. Since Jones won by 22000.

[ExtraSlow]

So what would happen in this fictional scenario? Candidate concedes defeat, but late counted ballots get them within the 0.5% margin. Does a recount still happen?