A Quote by Mangosuthu Buthelezi

The candidates before you know that the IFP has set up a system of deployed IFP national and provincial leaders who are not only monitoring the performance of candidates during these elections but will also do so after these elections.
We can't continue assuming that politics is something which is decided elsewhere by distant leaders in a distant capital. Protest is insufficient too. If people who are willing to put time into demonstrations also prove willing to work on behalf of candidates in local elections - or to become candidates themselves - they will achieve far more. If all of this upheaval provokes more involvement, then we have a slim chance of ending up with more vibrant democracies eventually. The alternative, as you've hinted, is that democracy fails altogether.
[American Communist Party] legally exists in the U.S.A., it nominates its candidates in the elections, including Presidential elections.
As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, American democracy is being undermined by the ability of the Koch brothers and other billionaire families. These wealthy contributors can literally buy politicians and elections by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the candidates of their choice. We need to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections so that all candidates can run for office without being beholden to the wealthy and powerful.
Favorite-son candidates almost always win their states decisively in presidential elections. But their status as national celebrities can end up breeding fatigue and resentment among home-state voters when the election is over.
If free will exists, why do the tallest candidates with the best hair usually win elections ?
Candidates are up one day, down the other. Candidates' fortunes turn on a dime. They can be determined by a good or bad debate performance.
In American elections there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates win or lose, the next morning we wake up as Americans.
We can have national dialogue where different Syrian parties sit and discuss the future of Syria. You can have interim government or transitional government. Then you have final elections, parliamentary elections, and you're going to have presidential elections.
How do you trust a prime minister who said one thing before the elections and does exactly the opposite after the elections?
I'm going to take part in the elections, not just as a candidate but as a mouthpiece for those who can't become candidates.
Our [Republicans'] object is to avoid having stupid candidates who can't win general elections, who are undisciplined, can't raise money, aren't putting together the support necessary to win a general election campaign, because this money is too difficult to raise to be spending it on behalf of candidates who have little chance of winning in a general election.
There is one catagory of advertising which is totally uncontrolled and flagrantly dishonest: the television commercials for candidates in Presidential elections.
Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.
It's going to be interesting to watch presidential elections in around 2040, when voters can dig up candidates' teenage angst pics and posts from old social media and discussion forum archives.
I always like to take my time and examine the two candidates, see not only the two candidates but the policies they will bring in, the people they will bring in, who they might appoint to the Supreme Court, and look at the whole range of issues before making a decision.
When my party won the elections convincingly on February 18th, 2008, we immediately reached out to other parties to form broad-based coalitions of national unity in the National Assembly and in the four provincial assemblies.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!