1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Threatening to not concede

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by FourBear, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. FourBear

    FourBear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you think of politicians who refuse to concede defeat in a very close election? Do you think it's a good call, or a selfish move on their part? I personally find it annoying...it's almost like, "C'mon! You've lost already!"
     
  2. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simple answer from me: It varies on a case-by-case basis.
     
  3. tater03

    tater03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would have to agree that it would have to be decided on a case by case basis. I would rather take the time and make sure the voting results are correct than just put someone in that did not really win the election. A lot of times you only see this when there is a very close race or they have legitimate reasons to think the results are wrong. And with the way the election process has went in some places recently I really cannot blame them if they want a recount before they concede.
     
  4. wondering

    wondering New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well... if you haven't noticed, we've had a president in office for years that didn't win. I think it's amazing. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy?
     
  5. tater03

    tater03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know what I don't get is why we really need the electorial vote? I will admit that I don't know alot about it but I would think it should just be who gets the most votes across the board.
     
  6. FourBear

    FourBear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really understand the electoral vote anymore either! I think it's an outdated mechanism that needs to be either revised or done away with completely.
     
  7. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bush won according to the rules, which no one has seen fit to change. You can't blame the guy if our democratically elected reps to the college democratically elected the guy a minority of the population voted for. (I think he did get the majority the second time around, so it obviously wasn't that big of a travesty in the mind of most voters.)

    It's definitely an outmoded system, but it rightfully has a high hurdle to change (constitutional amendments are intentionally hard to do) but at least the problem only comes up in very close races. Our democracy has a margin of error of a few percent because of it. There are worse things to worry about.
     
  8. wondering

    wondering New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't talking about electoral - I was talking about the fact that it took a month to recount the votes until he finally won. It was disgraceful.
     
Loading...

Share This Page