A Quote by Gina Miller

In more stable political times, a low turnout in the E.U. elections was a luxury we could afford. — © Gina Miller
In more stable political times, a low turnout in the E.U. elections was a luxury we could afford.
Congressional dysfunction is the logical result of closed primaries, too many gerrymandered one-party seats, and low-turnout elections.
Unlike the U.S., Iran has no problems with low-voter turnout in elections; the last time, the government got the support of 110 per cent of the population.
I think, at the end of the day, especially for municipal elections, we see relatively low voter turnout. So the goal is to expand who sees themselves reflected in government, who's empowered to take the lead in politics.
Elections themselves do not necessarily lead to more corporate uncertainty - quite the reverse, stable democracies create a reliable environment. And elections have caused hardly any change in the basic economic framework in the last few decades.
The 2004 Election marks the first time in modern political history that Republican voter turnout matched Democratic turnout in a presidential election year.
Democrats and progressives do well when the voter turnout is high. Republicans do well when the voter turnout is low.
I'm particularly good at turnout. So in my district, I had the lowest voter turnout in 2006. And now I have the highest turnout in the state of Minnesota. And Minnesota is the highest turnout state in the country.
Unfettered market American-style capitalism doesn't work. Developing countries can't afford that kind of luxury. They just can't afford it. Period. If there's a mistake, they can't afford to put out $2 trillion.
In the 00s, it was often claimed that political apathy had replaced political participation. Membership of political parties and electoral turnout were both said to be in irreversible decline.
I'm low key at times and really learning as a political figure to give more - show more of myself and be less buttoned down, which I was when I was a lawyer and I was when I was a federal regulator.
Luxury is obviously the direction that interests me the most, but there is a lot of confusion between luxury and exhibitionism. For me, the concept of luxury is more traditional, more exclusive, more sophisticated than luxury for the masses.
With super PACs, we've seen voter turnout go up; interest in elections rise; and the number of competitive races increase. The campaigns of 2010 and 2012 have been more issue-oriented than their predecessors, not less.
We've got 50 percent voter turnout for presidential elections. That's appalling. We can do so much better.
India's national elections are really an aggregate of thirty different state elections, each influenced by its own local considerations, regional political currents, and different patterns of political incumbency.
The PRI can afford to push democratization; it can afford to be generous because it has a very good chance of winning in clean elections.
Elections in India are not contests between personalities. They are ultimately battles involving political parties; promises and pledges that political parties make; the vision and programmes that political parties bring to the table. So although, Modi's style is 'I, me, myself,' I don't think 2014 elections as a Modi versus Rahul contest.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!