During the heyday of Communism, the Party argued that it represented the will of all the working people. Since this representation was axiomatic, other political parties could not be allowed to exist because (a) to the extent that their philosophy differed, to that extent they did not represent the working people, and (b) to the extent that their philosophy was the same, they were not needed since those viewpoints were already represented in society by the Communist Party.
Of course, the logical fallacy is at the beginning: Communism did not represent the will of all working people, although it clearly represented some. For that reason, every statement that followed the fallacy was likewise incorrect.
Enough history lesson, what is my point? I see an analogy to the present political climate in the United States. Our lunatic left, particularly as represented in the more extreme rantings on the web, takes the view that any election they don't win is, by definition, illegitimate. Like the Roman Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition, they believe that what they define as error has no rights. To the lunatic left, that a majority of voters might vote for a non-left candidate is inexplicable without recourse to accusations of stupidity, duplicity or insanity. In other words, the only good election is one they win; whether the process be clean or dirty means nothing.
On the other hand, I fully understand that circumstances may influence intelligent, sane individuals to vote for liberals on occasion. For example, the election of FDR in 1932 and reelection in 1936 is entirely understandable. The Great Depression was enough to make Democrats out of a lot of folks. As a conservative, I may not like the outcome, but I do understand it and don't view such elections as illegitimate. Our political system works best when no party monopolizes the levers of power for very long.
