Last Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris did something very important that went missing in the 2020 presidential election: She accepted that she lost.

“Earlier today, I spoke with President-elect Trump and congratulated him on his victory. I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris said in her concession speech. “A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny, and anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it.”

This should not be a remarkable moment. It should be standard in our democratic process. And yet, compared to what we witnessed and experienced as a country for the past four years, with former and now future President Donald Trump refusing to accept the reality of his previous defeat, Harris’ unambiguous concession stands out as a graceful act of putting American interest before self interest.

We say this not to dwell on the past, but in hope of a future where election results, even disappointing ones, are given the credence they deserve. Our system relies on people stepping up to serve in public office, on voters choosing their preferred path forward, and on those people accepting and respecting the will of the voters — even if a candidate doesn’t like the results.

That is not to say that all initial results must be accepted without question or pause. Recounts and legal challenges may come into play, and are legitimate and necessary safeguards in our system of self governance.

Being a gracious loser doesn’t mean accepting defeat without delay or verification. It means accepting defeat when it has been made clear by voters and the legal process.

We didn’t see that from Trump after the 2020 election, with attempts to derail the certification on Jan. 6, 2021 and his continued insistence that he won an election that he had lost. Now, in an election year when he actually won, it is the losing candidates who give us hope for a reset and a return to the fundamental willingness to accept the decisions made by voters.

Electoral concessions do not need to be concessions of belief. Candidates can and should acknowledge a defeat without acquiescing to the ideas or policies of their victorious opponents. Campaigns may end but work remains, as Harris spoke to in her concession.

Again, this type of statement probably shouldn’t stand out. It should be the expected response to a political defeat. But made in a climate that has been too often beset by election denialism, it is both commendable and refreshing. There are always winners and losers in American elections, and this is the gracious response we should expect from them.

The Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine)