0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why would members of Congress vote against campaign finance reform?
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.
Has a state electoral vote ever gone against the states poplar vote?
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.
Who could vote when the country was founded?
White men
Who would you vote for and why?
I would vote for the Conservatives, which is Stephen Harper's team. Just because.
Why was the Senate vote to declare the War of 1812 so close at 19 for and 13 against?
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.
How many Wyoming state senators are likely to vote against the pending bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in that state?
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.
Was conscription in World War 2 a good idea or a bad idea and why?
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.
Why can't a one party system exist in a democracy?
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.
Why did Robert Borden give women the right to vote in 1917?
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.
How many Wyoming state senators are likely to vote in favor of the pending bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in that state?
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.
What was the only EEC country to vote against stronger health warnings on cigarette packets in 1989?
italy
Why did you vote for Barack Obama?
I thought that he would be good for the country. Thats why.
How did borden ensure that he won the 1917 election?
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 .
How are decisions made where the Olympic games will be held?
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.
Why was Johnson not removed?
Johnson was not removed because in court he needed 2/3 to vote against him (one more vote and he would have been impeached).
What did Anthony hope would happen?
that women all over the country would try and vote ( apex )
When a country can vote for their leader this is a characteristic of a?
It is a characteristic of democracy when a country people can vote for their leader.
