A Quote by Elizabeth Esty

There are things that matter more than your election. That may take difficult votes, may take career-ending votes for people, but if we aren't willing to do that, then we're not going to move forward.
I can't predict if I will see a woman president, but I think I may well because, again, Hillary Clinton got more votes probably than any other Democratic candidate ever, except for Obama. But she got more votes than Trump and she got more votes than Richard Nixon got when he won the election, more votes than John Kennedy got when he won.
If elected members of any body - whether it's a state house or Congress - were not willing to take career-ending or at least election-losing votes, I would not have the right to vote today.
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.
In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election. The Supreme Court's ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College. That odd scenario - where the candidate with the most votes loses - has happened three times in U.S. history.
Election victories increasingly depend on factors other than who votes, or tries to vote, and for whom. In 2000, the presidency was awarded by the Supreme Court, pre-empting the count of thousands of Florida votes.
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
If all power is in the people, if there is no higher law than their will, and if by counting their votes, their will may be ascertained - then the people may entrust all their power to anyone, and the power of the pretender and the usurper is then legitimate. It is not to be challenged since it came originally from the sovereign people.
They may then be willing to cast principled votes based on an educated understanding of the public interest in the face of polls suggesting that the public itself may have quite a different understanding of where its interest lies.
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Such a closely divided election; Secretary [Hillary] Clinton won the popular votes.Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin - about 112,000 votes separated the two candidates as well.
While we always strive to reach 218 with Republican votes, sometimes that is not possible with divided government, and the story of a bill that passed with 150 Republican votes is much more positive and assertive than the story of a bill that passes with 79 Republican votes.
There's a lot of fuss on the Left about election irregularities, like, you know, the voting machines were tampered with, they didn't count the votes right, and so on. That's all accurate and of some importance, but of far more importance is the fact that elections just don't take place, not in any meaningful sense of the term 'election.'
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.
I have a big-picture outlook, I am willing to fall, and I understand it's ok to fall, but I am going to get back up, I may take a step back, but in the end, I am going to take a giant leap forward.
The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it's called democratic.
I never miss a vote; I think that's the power of the people. A lot of people fought and died for us to have votes, for women to have votes in particular - your vote is your one weapon.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!