[EM] Conceding Victory

[Forest Simmons]

There is a long tradition of candidates conceding victory before all of
the votes are counted, once they lose hope of winning.

Has anybody ever challenged this tradition in court?

I remember that at one point Gore conceded to Bush, and then he changed
his mind, so ultimately the Supreme Court appointed Bush to his position.

Did the Supreme Court take into account Gore's concession?

Under what conditions can a candidate concede to another?

When are these concessions binding?

Has this ever been spelled out?

If not, why not spell it out in the most useful way?

Why not say that if two candidates have significantly more than half
the total votes between them, then one can concede victory to the other?

It seems to me that all cases of concession in the long tradition would
meet this test, and that this would go at least part way towards solving
the vote splitting problem without having to legislate any reform.

Here's what I'm thinking:

(1) Nader runs.

(2) Nader and Kerry get more than fifty percent of the votes between them.

(3) Nader concedes the victory to Kerry (or better, Kerry concedes to
Nader).

(4) Bush says, "You cannot do that."

(5) Nader says, "Why not? Let's take it to the Supreme Court."

(6) The Supreme Court says the tradition of conceding has withstood all
challenges, but has never been spelled out. Let's spell it out in the way
that will serve the best interest of the republic, i.e. the way that will
ameliorate the vote splitting problem.

(7) Bush loses.

(8) A precedent has been established.  The only way to nullify it would be
by legislation in the direction opposite to election reform.

(9) More likely, any legislation would be in the direction of better
methods.

In other words, let's use inertia to our advantage.  The status quo is
that candidates can concede.  There is no explicit law to that effect, but
the Common Law is established implicitly by tradition and practice over
long periods of time, not by legislation.

And (as I understand it) the Common Law is seen as more fundamental than
legislation when there is a conflict between the two, unless there is a
constitutional amendment enabling legislation against the Common Law.

This idea is only a long shot, but what do we have to lose?

Third party candidates should start conceding to the frontrunner of their
choice (as a way of drawing attention to the possibilities of voting
reform) rather than merely admitting that they lost.

How do we get this idea to Nader and Kerry?

Forest