Just because a candidate doesn’t concede doesn’t mean that the winning candidate doesn’t get to take the seat. Could you imagine what kind of mess we’d be in if it was the law that every losing candidate had to concede before the winner could take office?
That isn’t what I was stating. The point I was trying to make is that all the votes were not counted. How can you state a win or loss if all the counts are not counted.
From the results on the night he conceded I believe Owens was stated to have won by that point by a margin of just over 5,000 votes. Ends up that some of the districts counted Hoffman at 0 votes which was inaccurate and only 93% off the vote had been counted. Add to this over 10,000 absentee ballots that had not been counted. This alone could sway the vote to Hoffman, thus no concession yet.
Can you understand my point. If all votes are counted and you lose, then you concede.