From Concession Speeches to Constructive Dialogue

A post-election proposal

However apprehensive you might be about this election, be optimistic for a minute and picture a big win. Every race on your ballot goes in your favor. It’s not even close! There will be no recounts, no Antifa masks, no tear gas at the Capitol. The nation has spoken, and it agreed with you.

The Wednesday morning sun smiles through your bedroom window, and it feels like a second birthday. What will you do? You might sit in a lawn chair next to your yard signs, raising your coffee mug at neighbors going by. You take off work and treat yourself to an afternoon of social media gloating.

Perhaps this isn’t your style. Whatever form your post-election happy dance takes, let me offer a new way to engage with the losers—less petty perhaps, but still satisfying.

Give them a seat at the table.

Hear me out.

There’s a precedent for something like this. Remember history class (or the musical Hamilton) where the runner-up in the presidential election gets to be VP? Yeah, it didn’t last long. The 12th Amendment was ratified before three administrations were done!

That runner-up policy certainly deserved to go the way of the spinning wheel. But there is something valuable that we lost in the process. Those who voted for the runner-up felt somewhat represented in that office—in theory, anyway. Instead of looking at the White House in utter hopelessness or contempt, they knew someone in there had their back, understood them. The more election losers feel kicked to the curb and disenfranchised, the easier it is to give up, stew, become bitter. For those in the extremes or in dark places, this can contribute to desperation or even violence.

No, I’m not recommending an amendment repeal. (I mean, can you just imagine a Harris-Trump or Trump-Harris presidency?) I’m also not suggesting that the election winners should water down their priorities to try to cheer up the losing side. Elections do have consequences, after all.

I believe there’s a way we can get the best of both worlds, where winners run with their agenda, and losers still feel a part of the process. I call it the Runner-up Retreat. Here’s how it works. 

Our current post-election tradition is for the loser(s) to give a concession speech, and then for the winner to give their winning speech. These statements help the nation come to grips with the results, and settle down from months of emotion and build-up. They help us move forward together. The Retreat would take this a step further.

Our new custom begins in the winning speech as they publicly invite the second place candidate to a couple of Runner-up Retreats throughout the term. The election winner and some hand-picked members of their team meet with them in good faith to get their perspective on the state of things. What are the winners missing? What are the constituents who didn’t vote for them thinking and feeling? They might even explore small changes in policy that can satisfy more constituents while staying true to the winner’s agenda. If they can find new common ground on even one issue important to the American people, the Retreat will have been worth it. 

Let’s take a U.S. Senate race. In Arizona, Mark Kelly won with 51.4% of the vote in 2022. The runner up, Blake Masters, garnered 46.5%. With Blake attending Runner-up Retreats with Mark, the 46.5% of Arizona voters have something to look forward to before the next election. In some small way, at least, a whopping 97.9% are still a part of the process!

Okay, we need to manage expectations here. Yes, obviously this won’t make losers forget they’ve lost, and civility will be tested on both sides. In fact, an appointed moderator tags along to enforce a few rules, remind them of their roles, set the tone of the meeting, and put constituent fears of back-room deals to rest. They urge both sides to come at this in good faith for the sake of the constituents, for the winner not to be a gloating jerk, the loser to keep from becoming an insufferable heckler. We’re not in election mode anymore, we’re listening and problem-solving within the realities of the electoral mandate.

Some voters may be thinking: I didn’t walk neighborhoods for two months just to pressure my candidate to compromise with the other side! But there is no pressure to compromise here. The loser isn’t owed anything and isn’t standing in the way of the winner’s agenda. But once the campaign emotions have dissipated, the winner should want to have a finger on the pulse of the other side.

They say a compromise is an agreement where neither side gets what it wants. But I’m looking for a collaboration where both sides get more of what they want. Let me explain.

In military, computer security, and other disciplines, there is the concept of a “red team” that is tasked with scrutinizing the plans the main group comes up with. They search for flaws and reasons it might not work. (Think Toby from The Office.) It’s important to include them, though. Allan McDonald was a NASA engineer at the time of the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, and was acting in the “red team” capacity when he refused to sign off on the launch because of safety concerns. The reason we all remember the Challenger mission, of course, is because his colleagues didn’t listen. The runner-up would act as a valuable "red team", with ideas and potential warnings for the winner's consideration.

The Right and Left often look at the same thing from different angles. We don’t think quite the same, and we’re accustomed to shaming and fighting each other for it. But there are also times we can leverage it. There is a lot we disagree on fundamentally, but with good faith and a little humility, we can also help make each other better. The Right can help the Left see opportunities they’re missing, and how to achieve their goal with a new approach that the Right won’t object to as much. The Left can point out hidden dangers of the plans on the Right, or help them see ways to move forward, better living up to their own principles.

In the months leading up to an election, sure we can view the other side primarily as the team to beat at the ballot box. But at other times of the year, we’d be smart to view them as people with something valuable to offer. As someone who leans to the right and used to think the left must be intentionally trying to ruin the country, hard experience opened my eyes regarding my friends on the left. I don’t expect they’ll ever get me to join their side, but I find tremendous value when I seek out their liberal perspective.

I truly believe that when one half of the country shuts the other side out of the conversation, we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, are you on board? Is the Runner-up Retreat worth a try?

If you’re thinking there’s no way it can work—no possibility of both sides coming together in good faith—then ignore the presidential election for now and start at the local ones. Ask each candidate if they will pledge to extend this invitation to the runner-up, and if they lose, whether they plan to accept. Communicate to them that you think this is valuable to you, their constituents.

Some candidates may think that a meeting with their rival will weaken their plans to rile up their base in the next election and drive them to the polls. But with this strategy, we the people lose. Some issues go unresolved year after year, only to be dusted off at election time. Let’s show them that while we have voted them in for a reason, we certainly don’t mind if they speak to their opponent. In fact, we insist that they do.

We have forgotten how to pursue a political agenda in a way that doesn’t inherently divide, and we are buying into the troubling narrative that there is no use in engaging with anyone on the other side. But there is an appetite to reverse course—the number of American citizens and organizations has exploded in recent years who say the rift of toxic polarization is being forced dangerously wide. In fact, I recently met a global conflict mediator who has worked in the Middle East and other parts of the world reeling from deeply embedded hatred. He has returned home to the states. Not because he has retired, but because he is seeing the same sobering trajectory here.

Will the Runner-up Retreat really change anything? Some of them may not result in any concrete policy changes. But just as our tradition of the concession speech is significant even though it doesn’t change election results, the spirit of the invitation to the retreat and the act of accepting it are likely more profound than the retreat itself.

Whether or not this idea catches on with the candidates, I pledge to live it in my own circle and invite you to join me. If I’m on the side that wins big, I’ll try to keep the happy dance private (you’ll thank me) and be genuine and generous with the outreach as I say, “Hey, let’s hang out soon and talk politics. I sincerely want to know what you’re thinking.”

This is an essay for our 2024 Election series. Submit your article to submissions@fairforall.org.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.