Reply #89: Kerry had an opportunity to ensure voting integrity

[FubarFly]

before the election. If he lost because of voting fraud, then he is partially to blame. This country has a history rife with voting fraud occurring in almost every conceivable form. The difference now is that for the first time, this crime against democracy can subvert the will of the people on a massive scale. If you couple this with the most corrupt, immoral administration this country has ever seen, it's not hard figure out that if they could find a way to do it, and get away with it, they would. The Democratic Party's lack of foresight and preparedness on this issue is inexcusable.

So yes, even if he didn't lose, he still lost. Claiming otherwise won't overturn the results of this election. Even with definitive proof- in our current media climate- it still may be an impossible task. We can still get across the idea to the general public that the mere possibility of massive fraud isn't worth the risk to our democracy, which will go a long way to seeing that our next election will be more secure. But it would help if our chosen Democratic leaders didn't further undermine these efforts.

Kerry was correct to concede- but only because he didn't embrace the worthy issue of voting integrity before the election. If he stood on principle early enough, and our Party backed him, his non-concession could be portrayed as something other than him being a "sore loser."