No One Should Concede a Contested Election

The final polls before today's presidential election suggested that Democrat Barack Obama is well ahead of Republican John McCain – both nationally and in key battleground states. But surveys conducted prior to the voting, and exit polls of voters leaving their polling places, are not always definitional. In 2004, John Kerry was an exit-poll winner, but on election night he found himself locked in a county-by-county, precinct-by-precinct fight for the decisive state of Ohio.

Before all the votes were counted and all the conflicts were resolved in Ohio, Kerry conceded the election to Republican George Bush.

Kerry stood down in order to maintain a national political viability that would fail to be realized.

He should not have done so, as an ensuing recount and congressional review of the dysfunctional voting and counting processes in that state revealed a circumstance that demanded deeper and far more aggressive scrutiny.

Similarly, in 2000, Democrat Al Gore conceded a presidential race in which he had won the most popular votes nationally, even without the ballots that were lost to hanging chads and a contested recount in state of Florida. Gore was prodded to quit raising objections to the Florida count after a Supreme Court ruling that seemed to close off his options. Again, he was told that doing so was essential if he hoped to maintain what has proven to be an illusive "political viability."

Conceding a presidential contest is easy – an exhausted contender appears before the national press corps and makes a gracious statement – and the move is usually rewarded with praise by the elite political and media classes of the republic. But it is always wrong to do so before the votes are counted and conflicts are resolved.

When a candidate concedes prior to the conclusion of the process, he may maintain his own viability. But he does damage to democracy. Once the voting is done, a responsible candidate must cease to be a campaigner and take on a new role: that of the defender of the interests of the electorate – particularly that portion of the electorate that tried, with perhaps varying degrees of success, to make that candidate president. When the various contenders fail to put the case for their voters, they fail the broader process.

It is with this in mind that author Gore Vidal and allies such as Code Pink's Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, Progressive Democrats of America's Mimi Kennedy and Tim Carpenter and academic and honest-elections activist Mark Crispin Miller, among others, have penned an open letter to Obama and Democratic party leaders.

The letter declares:

"Eight years is too much" is how Barack Obama explained why we must win the coming election and begin to restore America. But, even if we receive the most votes, will we win the election?

DO NOT CONCEDE!

Both of the last two elections were conceded by the Democratic presidential candidate. The 2004 election was handed to George Bush while votes were still being counted in closely-fought Ohio. While the 2000 election was contested to the Supreme Court, it too was ultimately conceded to Bush "for the good of the country."

Some good.

Numerous politicians, investigators and authors, including Robert Kennedy, Jr., agree the 2004 election was stolen, not only in Ohio but in several other battleground states. Tactics included purging of legitimate voters and the use of nefarious voting software--but when even these actions did not yield the required numbers, Republican election officials simply changed the vote tallies in several states, all without a peep from the Democratic Party.

DO NOT CONCEDE!

In the time since the last general election the public has learned much about these scandals, which have led some states to reject electronic touchscreen voting (and which caused the infamous Diebold voting machines corporation to hide behind a new corporate name,) yet the Democratic Party seems to have learned nothing.

THREE STRIKES AND WE'RE OUT!

If we cannot afford another Republican administration, we cannot afford a third concession in the face of election fraud. Already there is evidence of massive fraud such as voter purging and caging of Democratic voters, and "flipping" of votes in early voting on electronic touchscreen machines. It is reasonable to once again expect further manipulation on election night by some Republican operatives and election officials, as was seen in 2004; should we also expect our Democratic Party leaders and candidates to repeat history, by once again conceding in the face of such blatant fraud? Senator Obama, we need you, our Party and all candidates to stand firm, come what may on election night. You ask us to work for you, contribute to you--and to have your back; we ask that you promise to have our back: We ask that you PLEDGE TO STAND FIRM, AND NOT CONCEDE THE COMING ELECTION in the face of election irregularities, no matter how long it takes to contest such fraud, while there remains any doubt as to any part of the process. Be assured, Democratic voters will be more--not less--energized if we see you promise to stand firm. Senator Obama, if there is any reason to contest the election,

DO NOT CONCEDE!

Whether one agrees or disagrees specific complaints contained in that letter, it is difficult to argue with the notion that premature concessions do harm to all honest players and parties.

It should be pointed out that a letter like this could have been dispatched to John McCain and the Republicans, since it would be just as inappropriate for the Arizona senator and his supporters to concede before votes are counted and any issues they might have related to that count have been resolved.

Republicans may have benefited from Democratic concessions in 2000 and 2004.

However, it was not just Democrats but democracy that suffered.

A Republican decision to concede a contested election would similarly afflict the democratic processes of the United States.

The bottom line is a bipartisan, indeed multipartisan, one.

The prospect of a contested election is one that a great many Americans fear, and for good reason. The United States has a disjointed and frequently dysfunction election system, which allows for radical variations in standards for registering voters, casting ballots, counting those ballots and recounting them.

This year has already seen plenty of problems when it comes to registering and voting, as the group No More Stolen Elections has detailed.

On this Election Day, the No More Stolen Elections website will be constantly updated with information regarding concerns about the voting and vote counting. It's an essential resource on one of the most critical days in the history of the American experiment with democracy.

It will also tell us whether a sufficient number of concerns have arisen to make this a contested election, and to argue against a concession.

Comments (14)

1. If John Nichols is worried about an election so close, we need to worry about "not conceding"....

   it probably will be a landslide!

   heheh

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 07:15am

2. McCain should concede now, get it over with.

   Then Bush should leave early.

   So finally we can bring the troops home. Just like Obama said he would.

   Posted by bleedingheart at 11/04/2008 @ 07:29am

3. the pennsylvania secret......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 08:23am

4. So finally we can bring the troops home. Just like Obama said he would. Posted by bleedingheart

   That will probably be the first promise he breaks as President.

   Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2008 @ 10:12am

5. Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2008 @ 10:12am

   So which is it, ABELL?

   Is it-

   "Obama is a socialist radical. He'll tax us to death and impose government control of EVERYTHING and be the most left-wing President in history!!!!"

   or is it-

   "Obama isn't going to be some Messiah to you liberals. He'll stay centrist and not pull out of Iraq and you lefties are going to be VERY disappointed!!!"

   (Let me guess?...it's "both", right?...heheh)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:29am

6. probably.

   but the accountants just may have the final say.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:29am

7. "Whether one agrees or disagrees [with the] specific complaints"

   one does not agree or disagree with the sorts of complaints mr vidal et al have set forth in their letter- one investigates them to see if an indictable offense has been committed and, of so, prosecutes and, if convicted, sentences the criminals.

   Posted by montemerrick at 11/04/2008 @ 11:11am

8. Somebody HAS to write a book on the flip flop mentality of the conservatives. The ugliness of their own candidates has them SO confused, but they don't want us to win either.

   I voted for Obama, I voted early, and now I suffer through the last vestige of sour grapes and Wah! politics. I'm not the prayin' kind, but today I will look upward at the sun, at the very least, and ask for the blessing our country needs... and an end to all the negativity and hate I've seen during this campaign. My positive take is that an Obama presidency will win converts and create a more unified America.

   GoBama!!

   Posted by ficheye at 11/04/2008 @ 12:35pm

9. Today was the first time I really enjoyed voting. And it's been over thirty years now.

   Just to sober up I went over to National Review to see what they're saying. I didn't make it much past the ad with Rev. Wright before I got the drift.

   Time to put on the pads, folks. Because the people who looted our country for eight years are not going to "embrace change".

   Posted by MyParadigm at 11/04/2008 @ 1:03pm

10. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/warn.mhtml?pid=380088

    congrats. Obama has been the president for a few weeks now. sans portfolio.

    it is a welcome change to be able to watch the pres on TV. I could not bear the criminal Bush's visage, to say nothing of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condi.

    the capo will pardon them all, but international courts will not. their travel plans will be somewhat curtailed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/04/2008 @ 1:13pm

11. A political party that can't win an election that it won is worthless.

    Posted by Steve C. at 11/04/2008 @ 3:00pm

12. Neocons might soon have a sigh of relief:

    "John McCain is not only bad for Republicans," said Ann Coulter.

    "He is very, very bad for the country" said Ann Coulter.

    McCain is so stupid he doesn't even know when he's been caught" said Ann Coulter.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/04/2008 @ 3:31pm

13. To the People of the United States of America: FELLOW CITIZENS, the importance of this Presidential election undeniably surpasses all others in recent memory. We are at war, uncertainty is threatening our way of life, and the politicos are continuously failing us. So let us ask ourselves, who can we literally afford to trust in office? Americans are being swayed, divided, and weakened by two political parties through the use of Styrofoam backgrounds, vague slogans, and properly placed emotional gestures. But history has taught us that political rhetoric flourishes in many forms during troubled times, so do not be easily fooled by the patriotic images and shows that any politician is participating in. Still, some are saying that we should entrust the 72 year old warrior-statesman because he will righteously put "Country First". Indeed McCain, who was born on an American Naval Air Station, has had many honorable life experiences similar to those of characters we remember today via marble works of art and Plutarchic biographies. But on the other side of the deliberation stands the swarms of people who sincerely believe that the eloquent Ivy-leaguer can bring a much needed change to the political culture in Washington. The novus homo, Barack Obama, continues to inspire the masses with a sense of hope not present since the time of JFK. The Republicans and Democrats have put forth their best men: let US choose between them. But why should one of these highly regarded men (who is going to win the vote of tens of millions of tax-paying Americans) just simply be eliminated and declared loser along with those who voted for him? Does America not need all the competent leadership she has nurtured to attend her needs as Americans and not partisans? Why can't both these even-tempe

    Posted by studentoflife at 11/04/2008 @ 8:45pm

14. To the People of the United States of America: FELLOW CITIZENS, we are at war, uncertainty is threatening our way of life, and the politicos are continuously failing us. So let us ask ourselves, who can we literally afford to trust in office? Americans are being swayed, divided, and weakened by two political parties through the use of Styrofoam backgrounds, vague slogans, and properly placed emotional gestures. Republicans and Democrats have become like an independent head of a two-headed dragon that hurts itself while trying to dictate its direction. We the People must tame this dragon by showing it that two heads are better than one. PUBLIUS

    Posted by studentoflife at 11/04/2008 @ 8:48pm