ranck@vt.edu wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a question about the election.
>> On AP News Wednesday afternoon, Senator Kerry said in order to save the
>> country the kind of debacle which occurred in 2000 when Mr. Bush was
>> eventually declared the winner, he was going to concede the election
>> to Bush, which he did. But later in the day Wednesday officials said
>> they were still going to closely audit all the votes from Ohio. Now
>> just suppose the Ohio audit showed the Kerry *had* won that state
>> (although he and others said it was quite unlikely). But let's say
>> it turned out he did win *that state's electoral votes*. In that case
>> he might have won the election; but he has already conceded to Bush.
>> What would happen in that case? Has a 'winner' of a presidential
>> election ever conceded it to someone else? Just curious. PAT]
> I don't think it has ever happened, but what Kerry really said,
> in effect, is that his campaign will not challenge the vote counts
> anywhere. If, as you suggest, Ohio does its own audit and awards
> its electors to Kerry, then the Electoral College still does its
> thing on the appointed day in December and Kerry could in theory
> still become President. This seems highly unlikely, but there is
> no mechanism in the Constitution for a candidate to "concede."
> I suppose he could refuse the appointment, but then the office
> would go to Edwards, not Bush. At least, I think that's how it
> would work.
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
Even cooler :-( is what would happen in the event of a TIE in the
Electoral College: the vote goes to the Senate (and Bush wins) But the
vice president could be Edwards!!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was all rendered moot earlier today
when AP Radio News (see http://telecom-digest.org/stuff ) reported
that the Iowa returns were now finalized and they had gone to Bush
also. PAT]
Rick Merrill (RickMerrill@comTHROW.net)