Elections can be very trying for any organization. Even if only one candidate is running for an office, there will be people who view themselves as losers. I remember that when Kennedy ran against Nixon, Ohio went for Nixon. One resident that I delivered newspapers to told me that he would not vote again as his candidate lost. When I asked him which one he voted for, he said Kennedy. He explained that his vote meant nothing as Ohio went for Nixon. I told him that he did have a winning candidate and he added to the national total. He found that to be not good enough.
This sort of discontent is dangerous in that it has a win-or-nothing mentality attached to. There is no room for compromise nor for the influence of the minority. I find this nowadays in the way people view the results of the 2008 election — Obama won so that is the only opinion that needs to be considered. It is so dangerous.
I remember reading many a year ago (don’t ask me where as I can’t remember) that Lyndon Johnson was successful in the Senate not because the Democrats had a majority but because he knew to compromise and work with Dirkson who was the leader of the Republicans. He kept the Democrats agenda going but he did not overlook the opposition.
I really believe that the same needs to occur in any election results to have a strong organization — one side leads but does not dominate absolutely.
At the same time, the side that lost must be willing to work with the winners accepting the concept that the others are the leaders and many of the losing side’s plans need to be put on hold or moderated to an acceptable level.
I know that many people are opposed to the constant compromise of politics, but, when used well, compromise leads to a better organization for all the members.