"
We must all be cognizant of the glaring fact that elections in democracies frequently involve serious errors and ambiguities; irregularities that the losers believe robbed them of victory. Yet an opposition party (or parties) do not turn to violence in a democracy worthy of the name, least of all their distant supporters. George W. Bush's elections in 2000 and 2004 are good examples. Besides giving rise to claims of ballot irregularities (Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004), these elections violated the core principles of democracy: the people's sovereignty over their votes was denied and the candidates (Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004), who obtained the most popular votes nationwide, were denied victory (by the Supreme Court's decision and the Electoral College's arrangement respectively). Many Democratic Party leaders and supporters were__and still are__very angry about the outcome of the elections, but they did not resort to violence or force to retaliate, to change or
reverse the outcome. The point is profoundly paradoxical: in an established democracy, participants do not take up arms to protest even a transgression of democratic principles, such as (real or imagined) electoral fraud. The hallmark of these societies is a relatively low disposition to resort to political violence for any reason. As social scientists rightly contend, the inclination to resort to violence is a cultural orientation. It is transmitted from one generation to another, and, as the historical record shows, it can be unlearned. "
http://www.nazret.com/php/uploadnews/search.php?misc=search&subaction=showfull&id=1126792990&archive=&cnshow=news&ucat=6&start_from=&misc=search