Members of Congress vote against campaign finance reform because it negatively affects their campaigns. The current law are very advantageous to those with the right fundraising contacts.
Yes. In early elections, there wasn't necessarily a "popular vote". Some states selected their electors based upon a vote in the state legislature. In those cases, I'm not sure if it make sense to say it "went against" the popular vote, but it also certainly was not the same as the popular vote, because there was no popular vote. Also, there have been "faithless electors". These are electors who, basically, promised to vote for one candidate, and voted for another. This is a sort of "going against" the popular vote. In a sense, in most states the electoral vote always "goes against" the popular vote in the sense that the popular vote might be split 55/45, but the electoral vote will be 100/0. Only a couple of states "split" the electoral vote. It's arguable that we should abolish the electoral college and just use the popular vote directly to determine the President, but this would effectively weaken the major parties, so don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
White men
I would vote for the Conservatives, which is Stephen Harper's team. Just because.
The Senate vote to declare the War in 1812 was so close because the Federalists in Congress did not support the war, therefore didn't vote for it. Others in the Senate voted against the war as well.
All of the Republicans would likely vote against it and all of the Democrats would likely vote in favor of it, meaning an outcome of 20-10 against.
A bad idea. The government has no rights to send young people to their deaths. If a country is under threat, any individual in the country who wishes to defend the country, may. If someone doesn't want to defend the country, and the country is under threat, it's at his own risk. No-one should force anyone to do something dangerous like go to war. If the government has to introduce conscription, I believe that each and every individual who votes for conscription in the congress (or parliament) should go and fight in the front line, to lead by example. That's only fair really. Then the people who vote for conscription will think twice beforehand. In fact, the vote should be held among the people who are liable to conscription. If the government wants to conscript 18-21 year olds, the vote should be among 18-21 year olds. After all, democracy should be about the most relevant people's opinions, and anyone who is led to their death should have some say about it. I bet someone would never vote to conscript themselves if they weren't already in the military. Better still, people ages 50-55 should be conscripted. They've lived their life. Why kill 18-20 year olds? There're future is doomed if they lose their legs in wars and for the rest of their lives they'll suffer. At least if you're 60 when you go to war, the burden will be less. But that's just my opinion. I'd like to see the people who vote for conscription fighting in the front lines. That's what I'd like to see.
Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.Because there would be no other party to vote for, and so there would be no choice or opportunity to voice. There would be no opposition for the goverment, so they could do what they want with nobody to say anything against them or vote them out of power. A democracy has to have a choice of different parties.
Robert Borden gave women the right to vote, because by doing so, he could ensure his re-election into parliament. If he was re-elected, then he would be able to pass his conscription bill.
All of the Republicans would likely vote against it and all of the Democrats would likely vote in favor of it, meaning an outcome of 20-10 against.
italy
I thought that he would be good for the country. Thats why.
he gave the right to vote to women who had relatives fighting in the war so Borden was sure that these woman would support conscription CZ it would mean that their husbands and sons would get help from other soldier .
I think it's either a vote of a lucky dip to be fair if we did a vote everyone would vote for their country therefore a lower populated country would have less of a chance so I think it would be a lucky dip sorry for any inconvenience of me going on and on and still not knowing what I was talking about.
Johnson was not removed because in court he needed 2/3 to vote against him (one more vote and he would have been impeached).
that women all over the country would try and vote ( apex )
It is a characteristic of democracy when a country people can vote for their leader.