NY 23 may not be over?

[Salty]

On election night Mr. Hoffman (Conservative) conceded to Mr. Owens (Democratic) as he was more than 5,000 vote behind.
However, a re-canvas shows that Mr. Hoffman is less than 3,000 votes behind, with over 10,000 absentee ballots (many from Fort Drum GI's) Here is the story from the Syracuse Post-Standard)

Suppose the final tally shows that Mr Hoffman finally wins.
Should Mr. Owens resign his house seat? Should any votes he cast in the House of Representatives be voided?

Note: The NY Board of elections has NOT certified the election, but did officially notify the House leadership of the interim results and the fact Mr. Hoffman did concede.

Should candidates be careful in the future about premature concessions?

When I ran, for office, I had determined that I would not conceded if there was any numerical way for me to win. Not that I was trying to be bully, but rather, to me every last voter counts.

Thoughts?

 

[just-want-peace]

On election night Mr. Hoffman (Conservative) conceded to Mr. Owens (Democratic) as he was more than 5,000 vote behind.
However, a re-canvas shows that Mr. Hoffman is less than 3,000 votes behind, with over 10,000 absentee ballots (many from Fort Drum GI's) Here is the story from the Syracuse Post-Standard)

Suppose the final tally shows that Mr Hoffman finally wins.
Should Mr. Owens resign his house seat? Should any votes he cast in the House of Representatives be voided?

Note: The NY Board of elections has NOT certified the election, but did officially notify the House leadership of the interim results and the fact Mr. Hoffman did concede.

Should candidates be careful in the future about premature concessions?

When I ran, for office, I had determined that I would not conceded if there was any numerical way for me to win. Not that I was trying to be bully, but rather, to me every last voter counts.

Thoughts?

Based on the possibility here, all the "loyal"(?) opposition would have to do is flood the precincts with all manner of votes for their candidate and elicit a concession from the other.

If then, the "fraud" was discovered, what would then be the result?

1) nullify the results and create a firestorm of protests from the cheating side
2) ignore the finding and HOPEFULLY create a firestorm from the losing side
3) some other action that I can't think of right now, that will alienate everybody or nobody.

Best scenario - NO DECLARED WINNER UNTIL VOTES ARE ALL IN AND CERTIFIED AS LEGITIMATE.

However, with the MSM slobbering for a lib victory, jumping to conclusions will always be just around the corner when needed.

 

[Salty]

If then, the "fraud" was discovered, what would then be the result?
Best scenario - NO DECLARED WINNER UNTIL VOTES ARE ALL IN AND CERTIFIED AS LEGITIMATE.

However, with the MSM slobbering for a lib victory, jumping to conclusions will always be just around the corner when needed.

No fraud is being considered. Just a problem with proper reporting of vote count.

 

[Walguy]

No fraud is being considered. Just a problem with proper reporting of vote count.

Correct. Fraud only starts happening when the DEMOCRAT loses a close one (such as Minnesota last year).

 

[Salty]

So, now that we have details out of the way, does someone want to answer the OP questions?

Salty

 

[Aaron]

Should candidates be careful in the future about premature concessions?

Absolutely. The Socialists have a chokehold on this nation, and they are desperate to tighten their grip. If one running against a Democrat thinks that the election won't be rife with fraud, then he's a fool and shouldn't be in the running anyway.

A conservative candidate needs to fight dirty. It's unfortunate, but that's the fight the Democrats brought us.

 

[KenH]

A conservative candidate needs to fight dirty.

He/she shouldn't if such a candidate is a Christian.

 

[saturneptune]

On election night Mr. Hoffman (Conservative) conceded to Mr. Owens (Democratic) as he was more than 5,000 vote behind.
However, a re-canvas shows that Mr. Hoffman is less than 3,000 votes behind, with over 10,000 absentee ballots (many from Fort Drum GI's) Here is the story from the Syracuse Post-Standard)

Suppose the final tally shows that Mr Hoffman finally wins.
Should Mr. Owens resign his house seat? Should any votes he cast in the House of Representatives be voided?

Note: The NY Board of elections has NOT certified the election, but did officially notify the House leadership of the interim results and the fact Mr. Hoffman did concede.

Should candidates be careful in the future about premature concessions?

When I ran, for office, I had determined that I would not conceded if there was any numerical way for me to win. Not that I was trying to be bully, but rather, to me every last voter counts.

Thoughts?

You did exactly right in my opinion. Anything that demands a complete and accurate vote is what is needed. This election is significant in that it gives a real choice instead of the usual liberal Democrat vs liberal Republican.

I do have one question. Does a concession by a candidate have any legal meaning?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I do have one question. Does a concession by a candidate have any legal meaning?

My guess is no. It is just a speech,

 

[Winman]

Correct. Fraud only starts happening when the DEMOCRAT loses a close one (such as Minnesota last year).

Yes. We all remember the great scandal of the 2000 Presidential election with Florida.

The Democrats tried everything in the book, claiming that the ballots and voting machines were designed so that Democrats cast false ballots.

I grew up in Florida and voted many times. The voting machines were very easy to operate and understand. If you could not understand these simple machines, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I heard a comedian comment on the elderly having trouble with these machines. He pointed out that these same folks who could not figure out how to cast the correct ballot were the same people who can keep up with 18 Bingo cards at once. :laugh:

And only Democrats had difficulty voting properly, what does that tell you about Democrats? :laugh:

But as for the OP, I am not sure what you should do, I would think there were already laws on the books that cover this type of situation, and you would have to follow the law.

It seems difficult to believe that once a person concedes an election that the results could be reversed. Perhaps there is a time period where election results can be challanged and reversed. I am sure this varies by state.

If law allows you to challange the results of the election, go for it.