Q&A on the News

Q: After most elections, someone always refuses to concede to a victor, such as in Alabama with the U.S. Se n ate race between Doug Jones and Roy Moore. What does that matter? The winner is declared by the most votes. The loser can fail to concede and it still does not change the results. Why is so much written and broadcast about failure to concede? —Robert H. Parrish Jr., Thomasville

A: Since the nation’s earliest days, losers in presidential elections typically acknowledged the outcome in private, and, given the time it took to tally and report national votes, often days or weeks after Election Day. In 1896, the public concession was born when William Jennings Bryan sent a congratulatory telegram to William McKinley, explained Scott Farris in his book, “Almost President.”

“Sen. Jones has just informed me that the returns indicate your election, and I hasten to extend my congratulations,” Bryan reportedly wrote in his telegram. “We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.”

As technology changed, so did the mode of the concession—from telegram and telephone to radio to television. Media interest in electoral concessions at the presidential and other levels also grew.

In a 2016 Time report, historian and political theorist Paul Corcoran said concessions today are generally demanded by the media, but rarely “concede” a loss. The loser usually follows a formula, he said, of congratulating the winner, but importantly calling for unity and rallying supporters to accept the results.