Here is a game you can play at home.  Watch an election.  If a Democrat is involved, they will at one time allege voter fraud against their opponent.  Bonus points when they allege it even when they are winning.

For a long time it has appeared that Democrats believe heavily in this as an election tool.  Obviously the biggest known case is the 2000 presidential election where Al Gore made every effort to ensure only democratic votes were counted to swing the race.

Rumours of voter suppression and fraud were rampant, and eventually unfounded. 

In the 2004 presidential election the same tactics surfaced, this time in Ohio, where voter fraud was again claimed repeatedly, but never proven.

So I have long wondered if this is a strategic effort by Democrats, as if they were claiming it just in case.

In fact, that is exactly what happened in the Congressional elections in 2006 where many liberals predicted “we will win unless you cheat”.

So why is it that Democrats are so closely tied to fraud as a concept?  Is it just a convenient strategy?  Or is it more?

Honestly I think it is, in large measure, just a strategic way of laying the ground work for a challenge in case of loss, a political tool, nothing more.

The fact is that in every election there are irregularities.  Most of them are by law braking individuals, and there is no way I will warrant a guess as to the political affiliations of those people, but I can say I have seen more organized efforts that are deemed to be fraudulent by liberal groups. mostly by ACORN.

Of course the Democrats claim institutional irregularities by conservatives.  The electronic voting particular is attached to dire warnings of electronic tampering.  Again, I believe this is a preemptive way to ensure they can challenge something after the fact.