Sentences with phrase «not vote winners»

They are not vote winners.

«Margaret Thatcher Day» is not a vote winner»»

Their conclusion, therefore, will be; we must cut taxes, but it's not a vote winner; our priority must be to cut government waste, and concentrate our tax - cutting fire where it will do most good for the economy.

Not exact matches

Democratic candidate Roy Cooper has claimed victory in this race, but as of Friday morning Republican Pat McCrory had not conceded and the result had not been officially recognized; with a 5,000 vote margin out of 4.7 million votes cast, the Associated Press reported it could be late next week before the winner is officially known.

Whatever one's viewpoint on such policies is (and there's been much debate about whether these were promises or merely aspirations on Corbyn's part), one can not deny they were a vote winner — they were relevant, meaningful and appealing.

The winner is precisely the kind of essay one would predict; high on the kind of utilitarian / touchy feely / materialist thinking that these particular judges would find attractive if they have to vote for a pro meat essay, and strictly for humane meat or organic farming — the kind of food that a lot of folks simply can't afford.

He is old yes... But you do nt go from joint top scorer and and Golden Ball winner (voted best player) at a WC to being passed it in less than 12 months without a serious injury.

FPTP essentially throws away all votes that are not for the winner.

One of the desirable qualities of a voting system (according to Kenneth Arrow) is independence of irrelevant alternatives — the introduction of a new candidate shouldn't change the winner unless it's to that candidate.

According to them, by nullifying elections in 18 out of 31 local government areas, Section 179 (2)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution, which required that a candidate vying for the office of the Governor would be declared winner if he has not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two - thirds of the local government areas, has been breached.

We also have mandatory voting, so that the winner isn't decided by «who can get more people to vote», nor by voter suppression techniques.

Submission to blood - lust might be a vote - winner, but it is not really a very sound economic argument for taxing people differently based on the names of their employers.

We're better off voting for whoever we think will win instead of our favorite candidate, because every vote not cast for the winner reduces the voting power of our representative.

Woodbury did not receive the necessary number of votes to be elected in the 1845 at - large election, and no winner was subsequently chosen in a special election.

This is a good answer, though it may be worth pointing out problems with instant runoff voting, e.g. it can not guarantee a condorcet winner.

Winners get an invite to be an Honored Guest at the World E-Democracy Forum in Paris in October, which is a trip that would not suck, so PLEASE do your part and vote today.

By successful, I mean undermined the public trust of the results sufficiently so the winner could not successfully claim a mandate, take leadership, pass the law - whatever the vote was about.

@Bobson approval voting is a way to elect single members rather than bodies and can not guarantee a Condorcet Winner.

The public can't vote for it, but, if they could, the most likely election winner next May would be... this Coalition.

In Minnesota, the winner of a primary election is the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes cast for that office, even if he or she does not win an outright majority.

That's an entirely reasonable argument, but it proves the point I'm making - we don't actually know whether or not this is going to be a vote winner.

Opinion polls show that a significant majority of the public do not want to see Trident replaced, so cancelling plans for new nuclear weapons would be a vote - winner.

That something is a vote - winner is not necessarily a good reason to do it Maybe so but deal with the political reality for a minute and I maintain that the chances of getting widespread support for the LD proposals are far greater than a call to increase benefits by # 17b.

Even among UKIP voters, the opposition is not overwhelming (53: 38 per cent), and it is doubtful whether emphasising the party's opposition to SSM would be a vote - winner.

Basically it's a vote winner where the sort of redistribution measures floated here and on LFF are not.

Stroud has been relative to others a very marginal seat since 1992 as well as a swing seat as its winner's majority has not exceeded 9.1 % of the vote since the 19.2 % majority won in that year.

The LibDem big idea on free school meals isn't the vote - winner Nick Clegg thinks it is.

Why not go with something like either Instant or later Runoff vote such that the winner will have an over 50 % mandate?

I believe the correct generalisation is «vote which wouldn't change the result if not cast», i.e. the votes for the winner beyond the second candidate's vote plus one are wasted, but like you I can't find a reference.

The big winner in the five - way Democratic AG primary was «don't know», with a whopping 81 percent of poll respondents who are enrolled members of the party choosing that answer when asked a generic «who will you vote for» question.

For instance if you assume people are slightly to moderately more likely to vote for someone of their own religion, that the N % majority is present not just nationally but roughly repeated throughout all districts / units of representation, and that each district / unit of representation is winner - takes - all, then electing representatives just exaggerates the existing dominance of the majority.

Committing to fully replacing it is not anything like the great vote - winner the Tories seem to think it is.

It sounds intuitively like it would be a fixed figure (e.g. 50 % of the electorate, or 50 % of the votes), but as the winner needs only to have the «most votes,» that is not so.

If each person believes that his / her single vote will have no impact in the general outcome and decides not to vote during election days, will there be a single vote in the ballot box to declare someone a winner of any elections?

Although at the end of last night 14th district City Council candidate Fernando Cabrera had 90 more votes than the incumbent, Maria Baez, Cabrera is not officially the Democratic primary winner.

Winners in Vermont primary elections are determined via plurality vote, meaning that the candidate with the highest number of votes wins even if he or she did not win an outright majority of votes cast.

Instant runoff voting, also known as ranked - choice voting, allows voters to rank primary candidates in order of preference so that if one candidate does not cross the required threshold for victory, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and the votes are redistributed based on the second choice selected by voters who had selected the eliminated candidate first, and so on until a winner emerges.

Winners in Colorado's primaries are determined via plurality vote, meaning that the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes cast wins the primary election even if he or she does not win an outright majority.

The seat has been relative to others a marginal seat since 2010 as its winner's majority has not exceeded 8.2 % of the vote since the 21.8 % majority won in that year.

Whether that means that there's a series of individual races, everyone in a pool with the top X winners, everyone can vote for up to X, or some other method of determining representation isn't something I considered when asking the question.

Not only that this individual is not in anyway a valid candidate in the election, he also did not score the overall votes declared against his name by INEC and can not be declared winner under any circumstance within the provisions of our laNot only that this individual is not in anyway a valid candidate in the election, he also did not score the overall votes declared against his name by INEC and can not be declared winner under any circumstance within the provisions of our lanot in anyway a valid candidate in the election, he also did not score the overall votes declared against his name by INEC and can not be declared winner under any circumstance within the provisions of our lanot score the overall votes declared against his name by INEC and can not be declared winner under any circumstance within the provisions of our lanot be declared winner under any circumstance within the provisions of our laws.

«The provisions of the constitution and the electoral act are clear to the effect that with the unfortunate death of Prince Abubakar Audu before the conclusion of the election, and the fact that the laws do not permit the replacement of candidates once the balloting has commenced, the APC crashed out of the race, leaving the PDP candidate, Governor Idris Wada as the clear winner, having garnered 204,877 votes to top all other contestants since, Prince Ababakar, the hitherto leading contestant died with his votes.

The question is logically unanswerable because it is incomplete, since it doesn't specify how negative votes are counted with respect to the final winner, and other details of your proposed scheme.

As a general rule, returning home to find your home has been invaded by hordes of council staff is not a vote - winner.

Since the electoral college had already voted for the winner and the President had already inaugurated, what would happen since the Constitution doesn't state anything (as far as I recall)?

In that case, all 7 of A's electors will be able to vote, but B and C won't have any of their electors able to vote - the winner takes all (Unless the state is Maine or Nebraska, in which case they'll be divided up - there will still be 7 electors for the state, but maybe 4 will be for A and 3 for B).

This is not limited to Australia, but rather a by - product of any legislature whose members are selected through plurality voting (a / k / a winner takes all).

The vote for speaker hasn't been taken yet, but City Councilman Corey Johnson may already be the winner.

In Boston the dems have warned they can't seat the winner of the election until after the health care vote.

The x-factor is 1996 gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne; most political people in the state don't believe he can win but he has a following in conservative circles and could pull enough votes to have a hand in determining the winner.