You are absolutely incorrect. Concessions are simply not legally binding anywhere. They aren’t even required. People concede and withdraw those concessions all the time. It actually just happened in Virginia. Siobhan Dunnavant conceded, but it turned out there was a mistake in one of the precinct tallies and she ended up winning.
https://twitter.com/rtdschapiro/status/1191909859828150272?lang=en
You can’t cite a single legal precedent that indicates that a “concession” involves the things that you suggest, because one doesn’t exist.
In fact, Al Gore DID concede the election, and then withdrew it. His concession had no effect on the case that followed. All that mattered is at the end of the day, Bush had more votes.
Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson both conceded and then withdrew their concessions in Florida in 2018. Stacey Abrams still hasn’t conceded the Georgia’s Governor’s race.
Despite what you suggest, even a candidate withdrawing from a race wouldn’t have the effect that you suggest. If they got more votes, they would be elected. They could refuse to take the office, but the opponent doesn’t automatically win like you suggest.
The U.S. Constitution governs who will become president. The process for electing a President has nothing to do with a concession. I am sorry that you are mistaken, but you are.
I was responding to the original point that Dick Cheney would have become president in Bush v. Gore if Bush had conceded. There is no precedent or scenario where that could have happened. Bush was ahead in the election eve count and all recounts. The reason the whole mess dragged on as it did is precisely because Gore withdrew his concession and decided to fight all the way through the courts. Concessions do matter.