Sentences with phrase «voters vote for the candidates»

Unless all the voters stood around the polling station until the vote tabulation was completed to certify that 595 voters voted for candidate A while 294 voters voted for candidate B, paper copies are worthless.

Not exact matches

A Monmouth University survey released on Wednesday — conducted by telephone, and with a plus - or - minus 3.5 % margin of error — found that 51 % of registered voters said they would vote for or lean toward a Democratic candidate if the 2018 elections were held today, compared to just 36 % who said they would vote or lean Republican.

Black voters in red states should vote as they usually do for candidates, down the ballot — and leave their choice for President blank.

By converting «wasted» presidential votes into «none of the above» or support for third - party candidates in Oklahoma, Arizona and other deep red states in the South — the Confederacy, essentially — black voters would exert pressure on party leaders to not take black voters and their issues for granted.

Some voters in Jefferson County ended up crossing party lines to cast their ballots for who they thought was the best candidate in each of the races — defying the practice of party line voting in an election that showed a deep red - blue political divide.

Since most politicians» campaigns are largely funded by wealthy companies and individuals, it would give voters a better sense of who the candidate they are voting for is actually representing if the company's logo, or individual's name, was prominently displayed upon the candidate's clothing at all public appearances and campaign events.

Speaking to 1,000 people at the sold out conference, Broadbent called on delegates to seize this «once - in - a-generation opportunity for progressive change, an opportunity to ensure we have a fair voting system in which every voter counts, in which every citizen has a real opportunity to elect a candidate according to his or her values.

Schaffner says that before Obama's election, political scientists believed that «when candidates used language during a campaign, or during a debate, that was explicitly racist, voters would indicate that they liked that candidate less and were less likely to vote for them.

The Airdrie area has typically voted for the PCs, but voters in this region have been known to elect opposition candidates in the past (Western Canadian Concept MLA Gordon Kesler was elected in 1982 and Liberal MLA Don MacDonald was elected in 1992).

candidate, more than 50 million voters, including, crucially, millions of evangelicals, voted for the dimwit.

Additionally, 19 % of voters identified they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had strong religious beliefs other than their own.

But let's be serious, voters are ppl... ppl that have to relate with the candidates at some level or why vote for them?

Having, in effect, only 2 parties to choose from, will leave a large part of the voters without a candidate they feel comfortable enough with to vote for.

In last fall's presidential election pro-life voters were faced with a difficult moral choice emblematic of the politics of abortion in general: Does moral principle demand a vote for a marginally pro-life candidate with a chance of winning, or does it demand a vote for a completely pro-life....

The only reason the popular vote was close is that voters from the intellectual states — alabama, mississippi, arkansas, kansas, nebraska, oklahome, texas — turned out in droves for their candidate (anybody but Obama).

These voters don't want to vote for an establishment Republican candidate (or a Democrat) and it is up to populist conservatives to find the common ground.

For Latino and African American Voters of faith, the traditional appeal to values voting or litmus tests applied to candidates are not the sole means of vetting candidates.

Just prior to Cruz's concession, polls showed anywhere between 16 percent to 24 percent of churchgoing evangelical voters faced with a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, would choose to stay home or vote for a third - party candidate.

Polling just ahead of Cruz's concession showed that anywhere from 16 percent to 24 percent of voters said that if faced with a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, they would choose to stay home or vote for a third - party candidate.

As a wave of disappointed voters announced on Twitter that Trump's election has led them to drop the label evangelical, den Dulk speculated that evangelical believers who voted for Clinton may have been less likely to identify that way in exit polls, widening the born - again gap between the two candidates.

As surveys indicate, many voters will go to the polls, not to vote for a candidate, but to vote against a candidate.

The leaders of the mormon church do not publicly support any candidate, but ask their members to vote for candidates that share the values of the voter.

Their political uniformity is so reliable that I take an LGBT voter's guide with me into the polling booth, knowing that in voting against their endorsements I can never, for example, inadvertently harm a pro-life candidate.

«Faith - based» voters, who pull the lever mindlessly for candidates who have lead very unChristian lives, W. Bush and Perry among them, need to either divorce their faith from their political decisions or for the good of the country refrain from voting altogether.

But there is some sentiment for allowing the voters to vote for more than 10 candidates.

There were apparently a few voters in Category 5, too: We know that Ken Gurnick and Murray Chass both voted for just one candidate: Jack Morris.

The more candidates a voter has to consider, the less likely a voter is to make an informed decision about any of those candidates and the harder it is for the media to communicate information about the people who represent the voter to the voter so that the voter may make referendum style decisions to vote out a bum who is underperforming or acting contrary to the voter's wishes.

The actual proof shows that the only exceptions are a dictatorial system (i.e., one voter decides who wins) and a system where some candidates can not win, even if everyone votes for them.

It's a flash game (to be played in browser) that tasks you with redistricting given populations to achieve specific goals, for example depriving a surefire opposition candidate of votes, consolidating opposition in one area leaving one opposition candidate with almost all their voters and all the rest with less than enough to win, or just assuring status quo between the two parties by marginalizing uncertainty coming from undecided voters.

For instance, if you're running a candidate's site, be sure you have the kind of resources that potential voters and donors are looking for, including the candidate's positions on issues, his or her bio, instructions on how to register to vote (it never hurts), speeches or audio / video clips if you have them and easy and obvious opportunities to volunteer or to give monFor instance, if you're running a candidate's site, be sure you have the kind of resources that potential voters and donors are looking for, including the candidate's positions on issues, his or her bio, instructions on how to register to vote (it never hurts), speeches or audio / video clips if you have them and easy and obvious opportunities to volunteer or to give monfor, including the candidate's positions on issues, his or her bio, instructions on how to register to vote (it never hurts), speeches or audio / video clips if you have them and easy and obvious opportunities to volunteer or to give money.

Each voter casts one vote for an individual candidate of a registered political party or for an independent.

Three underdog NYC Democratic mayoral candidates — Mike Tolkin, Robert Gangi and Richard Bashner — appeared in a NY1 roundtable debate for a rare opportunity to address voters directly and publicly criticize the sitting mayor ahead of the Sept. 12 Democratic primary vote.

This break between the responsibility of voters to vote for candidates who will deliver their desired policies and their accountability for decisions they dislike being made is innately hostile to a functioning democracy, and thus such politicians are criticised on that level.

While the exact rules vary from state to state, essentially a voter is voting for a set of electors chosen by the party, and the most votes for a given party / candidate selects that set of electors, so where there is winner takes all, the set of electors is equal to the total number of electors for that state

I mean 51 % voters picked 20 electors who supports candidate A, and 49 % of them voted for 20 electors supporting candidate B. Which one electors will be chose to «final» voting (sorry for lack of specialist vocabulary)?

Here's how to spend a last minute budget online to woo likely voters to vote for your candidate, or remind your supporters to get out and vote.

@user4012 about 2), the final election day is just the end of a lengthy electoral process; if voters are better educated and use that education all through the process a demagogue should be stopped earlier in the process (so, for a party supporter it would not be end as [My demagogue] vs [candidate from other party], because [My demagogue] would have been voted out in the primaries; in these primaries such a voter would have the option to vote for other candidates more ideologically acceptable).

Rallying support for the New Patriotic Party's Amenfi West candidate for Tuesday's by - election, Nana Akufo - Addo urged the voters in the constituency to vote for Paul Denkyi to signal to the whole country that there is impending change.

So the optimal strategy for candidates is to win the support of people who can get lots of voters along to a meeting to go to vote.

What never ceases to amaze ME is the political «wisdom» that (1) black voters are more likely to vote for a gubernatorial candidate governor who will appoint a black Lt. Gov. and (2) women are more likely to vote for someone who appoints a female Lt.. The menfolk (including some in the press) must think that female and minority voters are simpletons.

If those running for any office don't receive a minimum percentage of the available votes, say for example (I'll keep this small scale) 100 voters are registered, and each candidate receives 25 or less votes, the election would be void, and new candidates selected.

It essentially became pointless with the introduction of FPTP for all seats, before that many seats used Block Voting and there were alliance slates in places (in some, Liberals, Nat Libs and Cons all put up one candidate each to LAbour's two; evidence was a lot of Lib voters supported Labour with second vote, but Tory and Nat Lib voters split all over the place).

It's just rare for the average voter to look at a candidate's actual voting record while they will happily listen to whatever that candidate says.

Second, the electoral college was set up to weed out «unacceptable» candidates not by dividing fringe voters in different states per se but by giving the electors the power to elect the candidate who lost the popular vote in the event that the more popular candidate turned out to be unacceptable for whatever reason.

There may be strongly partisan voters who would assign all of their votes to one party, but I suspect that most would combine a broad ideological position with support for individual candidates that had impressed them in some way.

The upper house of the legislature is elected on an ethnic basis, similar to the presidency; each voter in the Federation can either vote for Croat or for Bosniak candidates, not for both; the Federation elects 10 members.

This is because when voters are not really voting for a presidential candidate but instead voting to select the representative that will represent their state at the Electoral College.

By contrast, I assume that if the vote is nation - wide, then candidates may be trying to convince extremist voters to vote for their candidate, rather than sitting it out because the candidate is too moderate, or voting for a minor party candidate instead.

I assume that under the existing system, the focus is on swing states, which contain moderate voters, which means convincing moderate supporters of one candidate to vote for the other candidate instead, or convincing moderate supporters of one candidate to get out and vote for them, or convincing moderate supporters of the opposing candidate to stay at home on election day.

In this voting system, voters vote for the party, not a candidate.