It's better to ignore a stolen election?

Submitted by Timothy Hadley (United States), Nov 10, 2020 at 16:02

We seem to be playing word-games when we say "concede, but then, by all means, contest the results if you must." That makes concession an empty formality void of any real meaning. If concession is so critically important, it can't be followed by weeks or months of wrangling over the legality of the election results. A candidate can't "concede" but then say "The election was stolen from me. I'm going to fight the results." If he plans to fight, he shouldn't concede until the contest is over, right? Only then would a "concession" have any real meaning. If he concedes, he's quitting. It's over. If he plans to contest the results, he shouldn't concede.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".