Okay, I am NOT proposing this as anything other than a theoretical scenario. It applies to this election and the one in 2000, and possibly to ones in the future.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the greatest number of electoral votes wins.

Most states require that their electoral votes be given, in total, to the person who garners the popular vote in that state.

What happens if the election is, as this one was, very close? One candidate concedes, but the vote counting goes on (which it does). When the count is over, the pivotal state has cast the popular vote for the person who conceded! That person now has the electoral votes needed!

Who's president?

The Constitution doesn't address the issue.

And I'm talking of things as they are, not whether or not the Electoral College should be abolished or anything. And the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution, since there is now a clear winner.

My wife, the lawyer, says, "That's an interesting question."