Election law doesn't care if Trump (or Clinton) ever concedes

[milestogo]

(CNN)The prospect of election night drama seems to dwindle with each new round of polling. But Donald Trump, perhaps trying to author a campaign cliffhanger, is determined to provide Americans with at least a measure of "suspense" on November 8. Barring a remarkable turnaround -- "Brexit times five" as Trump put it last week -- Americans will begin their post-election Wednesday with a President-elect Clinton on the horizon. But whether her opponent sees fit to embrace defeat and publicly concede is mostly immaterial.

"It doesn't have any independent legal effect," said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine professor who runs the popular Election Law Blog. "If he concedes or he doesn't concede, the votes totals will be what they will be."Recounts are triggered automatically in 20 states and the District of Columbia when the margin of victory is sufficiently narrow, according to different laws in each of those states. The parameters vary -- in Florida and Pennsylvania, it's a margin of 0.5% or less of the total vote, while Michigan requires a deficit of 2,000 votes or less.

The most notable recount in recent times, after the 2000 presidential vote in Florida, began not -- as the Trump campaign has suggested -- at the behest of a litigious and sour Al Gore, but in accordance with the state's predetermined rules for sorting such a narrow vote. In all, 43 states "permit a losing candidate, a voter, a group of voters or other concerned parties to petition for a recount," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But at least a few require the loser to meet some benchmark, like in Idaho where requests are only heard if the margin is less than 0.1%.

Ultimately, the identity of the new president will be certified by the House and Senate, where electoral votes are traditionally delivered in early January, and formally signed off on by the President of the Senate -- in this case, Vice President Joe Biden. Gore, like Richard Nixon four decades earlier, literally sealed his own fate. Trump's will likely be settled way before then, but even if the 2016 drama bleeds into next year, it's unlikely to turn on what he says or doesn't say -- no matter what he claims now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/donald-trump-election-concession-law/index.html

[Mc Mike]

1. Thanks, miles. Good info, nt.

[unblock]

2. legally, of course not. but that misses the point.

legally, it would be a ridiculous and untenable form of democracy is the loser had to concede in order for the winner to take office. so, nice of the article to detail the procedure, and to clarify that a concession is not a legal requirement, though it seemed obvious to me at least.

what *is* important, however, is that the country unite behind a single president, and that after a hard-fought contest, we remember that we're all americans and we put in our new president the dreams of all of us, not just the dreams of that candidate's supporters.


it's a bit like the dollar not being backed by gold. it works as long as people don't freak out about the fact that it's technically not backed by anything beyond what other people will give you for it. if a big chunk of the population completely loses faith in the dollar, then we have a major problem on our hands.

similarly, democracy doesn't work very well if a new president is deemed not to be legitimate, deemed to represent only a subset of the country, etc.

it's for this reason that trump needs to concede, or his lack of concession needs to be roundly denounced.

[milestogo]

3. I'm not altogether sure that Trump understands and accepts the law.

[unblock]

4. he has nothing but contempt for the law

he certainly understands legal bullying, though.
also that clever tax lawyers can save you oodles.
finally, he understands that wealth often trumps the written law.

not much of that will help him when he loses a presidential election, though.
Hillary's got money and lawyers enough to fight back.