{"id":303,"date":"2004-09-05T23:20:54","date_gmt":"2004-09-05T19:20:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ukrupnenie.com\/countries\/m\/mozambique\/mozambique-presidential-election-2004.html"},"modified":"2007-09-05T23:24:09","modified_gmt":"2007-09-05T19:24:09","slug":"mozambique-presidential-election-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/countries\/m\/mozambique\/mozambique-presidential-election-2004.html","title":{"rendered":"Mozambique. Presidential Election 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
Provinces<\/th>\n\t\tAfonso Dhlakama<\/th>\n\t\tArmando Guebuza<\/th>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t<\/thead>\n\t
TOTAL<\/td>\n\t\t31.70%<\/td>\n\t\t65.00%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
1. Cabo Delgado<\/td>\n\t\t17.90%<\/td>\n\t\t77.70%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
2. Gaza<\/td>\n\t\t1.80%<\/td>\n\t\t96.90%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
3. Inhambane<\/td>\n\t\t10.00%<\/td>\n\t\t78.30%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
4. Manica<\/td>\n\t\t47.40%<\/td>\n\t\t47.60%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
5. Maputo (city)<\/td>\n\t\t13.00%<\/td>\n\t\t85.30%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
6. Maputo<\/td>\n\t\t8.60%<\/td>\n\t\t89.90%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
7. Nampula<\/td>\n\t\t43.90%<\/td>\n\t\t49.90%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
8. Niassa<\/td>\n\t\t28.30%<\/td>\n\t\t67.00%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
9. Sofala<\/td>\n\t\t70.30%<\/td>\n\t\t26.40%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
10. Tete<\/td>\n\t\t23.00%<\/td>\n\t\t73.50%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n\t
11. Zambezia<\/td>\n\t\t51.90%<\/td>\n\t\t37.20%<\/td>\n\t<\/tr>\n<\/table>

\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Provinces Afonso Dhlakama Armando Guebuza TOTAL 31.70% 65.00% 1. Cabo Delgado 17.90% 77.70% 2. Gaza 1.80% 96.90% 3. Inhambane 10.00% 78.30% 4. Manica 47.40% 47.60% 5. Maputo (city) 13.00% 85.30% 6. Maputo 8.60% 89.90% 7. Nampula 43.90% 49.90% 8. Niassa 28.30% 67.00% 9. Sofala 70.30% 26.40% 10. Tete 23.00% 73.50% 11. Zambezia 51.90% 37.20%<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electoralgeography.com\/new\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}