A Quote by David Sirota

Most often the electorate votes for change. — © David Sirota
Most often the electorate votes for change.
History shows that people often do cast their votes for amorphous reasons-the most powerful among them being the need for change. Just ask Bill Clinton.
In 2012, those French Muslim people voted massively for Francois Hollande against Nicolas Sarkozy. With the results of elections getting even tighter, those votes can make the difference. I am obviously not in favour of a "community electorate," however, pressure is so great on them that I can easily understand how it can affect their votes.
The average man votes below himself; he votes with half a mind or a hundredth part of one. A man ought to vote with the whole of himself, as he worships or gets married. A man ought to vote with his head and heart, his soul and stomach, his eye for faces and his ear for music; also (when sufficiently provoked) with his hands and feet. If he has ever seen a fine sunset, the crimson color of it should creep into his vote. The question is not so much whether only a minority of the electorate votes. The point is that only a minority of the voter votes.
Harry Reid employed the so-called nuclear option, broke the Senate rules to change the Senate rules, lowered the threshold for confirmation from 60 votes to 51 votes. And it is a direct result of Harry Reid that we now have the most conservative Cabinet in decades.
I would anticipate that the Electoral College will be held on the 13th of December, and our 20 electorate votes will go to the certified winner.
The Indian voter today is very mature. He votes in one fashion in the Lok Sabha elections, he votes in a different manner in the State Assembly elections. We have seen this. In 2014, the General Elections conincided with the Odisha Assembly elections. The same electorate gave one judgement for Odisha and another judgement for Delhi. So this country's voter is very mature and we should trust his maturity.
I think a fair amount of my votes were 'not-for-Ortiz,' votes and I'm going to have to work hard to earn the 'for Blake' votes.
I guess 35 years ago, I thought we had more of a democracy than we actually do. Majority support doesn't help unless the majority is active and votes - but the opposition minority votes a much greater proportion, so we often lose by a narrow margin.
We all know that an angry electorate is a voting electorate.
The National Popular Vote is about getting states to convert from the winner-take-all rule. The states that pass the legislation will assign all their electoral votes to the candidate that got the most votes in the country, not just in the state.
From a very selfish point of view, I'm enchanted by the idea that a politician can come along and speak simply and clearly and truthfully to an electorate as though they are grown-ups and to feel the electorate respond to that.
It is always tough to win every booth right across the electorate because there are different issues in different parts of the electorate.
A better educated electorate might change the reason many persons vote.
In politics it is necessary either to betray one's country or the electorate. I prefer to betray the electorate.
Donald Trump was not asked by the leadership to change. And there's no reason for him to change. He's just won the primary process with a record number of votes, beating a field of 16 qualified candidates. So, there's no reason for Donald Trump to change.
The weakness in a model in which one assumes that the electorate gets what it needs from Bill Clinton is that our system doesn't institutionalize the oppositional voice, and one needs to be able to hear the exchange of the debate in order to create an informed electorate.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!