It was clear, for example, in 1988 that the political process had already become perilously remote from the electorate it was meant to represent.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
This idea, as you know, that I have firm convictions that the idea of issues being a big deal where our mutual friend went back and he felt so strongly that the determining factor in electoral success should be a proven character.
History shows that there is no more potent engine for reform than the passion of voters who feel betrayed by the politicians they hoped would do the right thing.
Sometimes in politics, you get a wallop in the electoral process.
Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.
I was surprised by the response of young people because there is a perception that those younger than the 1988 generation are not interested in politics.
Language has historically stood as a barrier for some voters seeking to participate in the electoral process.
I do not comment on politics, but I see computerization of the election process as good for stability and social harmony.
Here's what I know about political campaigns: no matter what you map out at the beginning, it's always different at the end.
In most countries, a lopsided election represents a mandate that the winning party could then use to implement their agenda, but the U.S. political system seems to have been made to prevent such an occurrence.
The mythology is that political change happens only in election years. The truth is you build from election to election.