|
Edited on Fri Nov-03-06 10:19 AM by originalpckelly
is the uncertainty of results.
Even if there is no fraud, if people have lost enough confidence in our system to trust its results, the damage is done.
I don't blame them for this, because who in the world wouldn't be worried the other side had gained power through fraudulent results?
It totally makes sense that someone would say that when they have lost, because if there is a chance of fraud and a defeat of the will of the people, it is an invalid election.
You can't blame them for what is happening, not one bit at all.
I know we did it, and it isn't our fault either.
If you can't prove the system used to vote was error free in a lot of ways the election means nothing.
Elections ought to be so certain, that when someone loses they just accept it. There should be so little possibility of fraud, that no one would allege it. Then and only then can we have good elections. And no one is to blame whatsoever for being skeptical.
We might fault them for doing it when it looks like their party might lose, but they shouldn't have to think that, nor should we have in 2004, 2002, or 2000.
|