121 such a nature that they permeated the entire election spectrum. Perhaps what this means is that the parties will make the sacrifice and have more elections observer and agents deployed such that in the event of any future challenge, the agent and observers would be able to recount that throughout the process, fraud, violations and irregularities were committed. In the instant case, the portrayal of the violations and irregularities would seem to be more in the nature of isolated incidents, unless the Court proceeds to delve into the realm of speculation that since they happened in a few areas, they must have happened throughout the entire nation. This Court has said on manifold occasions that it cannot allow itself to speculate as to what may or may not have happened in regard to the totality of a process or event. It is for the party making the allegation to demonstrate the totality of the incident such that the conclusion can be drawn that the incidents alleged were widespread and affected the entire nation. Congress for Democratic Change v. National Elections Commission, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2012. In the alternative, the question is whether the violations of the Constitution and/or other laws, including the Elections Law, were of such magnitude that they warrant the cancellation of the prior elections and the ordering of new elections. This would be an issue more of law than of fact. And, as a matter of law, we have not seen in the violations alleged to be of such magnitude as to warrant, as a matter of law, cancelling the elections and ordering new elections. As the matter stands at the moment, this Court had difficulty accepting that because of such isolated violations the entire elections can or should be cancelled and a rerun ordered. In order for such contention, as advanced by the first and second appellants, to be sustained, they must have shown that there was overwhelming and massive violations. Merely alleging and in the evidence showing few violations and expecting that the Court should conclude that these were indications that they were widespread is not a position that this Court can endorse. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly, and the parties hereto are expected to understand and appreciate that in order for allegations to be sustained, the person or party making the allegations must present evidence to sustain the whole and not just a fraction of the allegations. In the instant case, the appellants were able to present certain evidence in respect of certain violations; what they failed to