Answer:
Explanation:
C would be the correct answer ;)
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
Good morning!
The main impact was in the cheapness of the transport since now the loads were taken double, reducing the costs of the driving.
<span>a) It reduced the cost of shipping goods to and from the East Coast
</span>Hugs!
Abuse in power and oppression, unquestionably, leads to conflict. During the Currency Act of 1764, Great Britain started taxing all paper goods, and other everyday goods to the colonies. These taxes were unjust and not fair. Britain abused their power by forcing these taxes upon them without consent and/or their say in it. This leads to debt and angry people, which leads to riots and destruction. Upon that, the people took sides, some were ok with these acts, believing that they were fair. This created more conflict between the people of the colonies. Wars break out because of disagreements, which can also lead to more debt and anger. This cruel oppression also emerged the famous, well-known saying of "No Taxation without Representation". This meant that they didn't want to be taxed without representation in the British parliament. These are one of many ways that abuse in power and oppression leads to conflict.
the 36°30' line, except for Missouri
