Answer:
In America, the presidential election system is not through the direct vote of the citizenry, but through the indirect election carried out by the Electoral College. Thus, each voting citizen gives his cast to a specific candidate, but said will must be endorsed by the electors of his state in the Electoral College.
In this regard, each state has the number of voters equal to the number of congressmen it has in the federal Congress. Thus, for example, states like Montana or Alaska have 3 electors (since they have 2 senators and 1 representative), while California has 55.
The problem is that, to determine the electoral votes of each candidate, it has been established that whoever wins the popular votes in the state takes all the votes of the electors of that state (except in the case of Maine and Nebraska). For this reason, it may happen that a candidate in California defeats his opponent 50.1% to 49.9%, in what would be almost a technical tie, but takes 100% of the electoral votes. Thus, the right of citizens to the election of their representatives is violated, and a candidate who has not obtained the majority of the popular vote (as happened in 2016 with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) could win in the Electoral College.
Thus, many candidates adopt the strategy of campaigning and giving all their effort in the states with the largest number of voters such as California, Texas, Florida or New York, leaving aside other states considered less important.
Answer- Henry seeks to engage his audience by showing his respect for them. He recognizes and compliments the patriotism and abilities of the other members of the Convention in his first sentence (note that Henry continues to address the body as the House). He prepares his audience by expresses the hope that they will show him the same respect when he states in sentence 2, "I hope it will not be thought disrespectful..." Even though he will be speaking contrary to what has been previously presented, he reminds his audience that they are all colleagues by referring to the entire group, as in sentence 6, "we can hope to arrive at the truth."
Explanation: good bye
;-)
Answer:
Explanation:Phineas Gage began the day of September 13, 1848 as a man remarkable only to those who knew him personally. He worked as the foreman of a railway construction gang in Vermont, where his group was preparing the bed for the Rutland and Burlington Rail Road. At just twenty-six years old, Gage was already a success story. Full of vim and vigor, he was well liked by the men in his charge, and his superiors were impressed with his skill at handling dangerous explosives. Gage had a combination of intelligence and athletic ability that made him perfect for the task of clearing rock from the path of the coming railroad. As his bosses noted, he was “the most efficient and capable man” in their employ.
1) French and Indian war
2) Townshend act
3) Boston Massacre
Not sure but hope what I know help a little...Slavery was “an unqualified evil to the negro, the white man, and the State,” said Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s. Yet in his first inaugural address, Lincoln declared that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.” He reiterated this pledge in his first message to Congress on July 4, 1861, when the Civil War was three months old.<span>Did You Know?When it took effect in January 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation freed 3.1 million of the nation's 4 million slaves.</span>
What explains this apparent inconsistency in Lincoln’s statements? And how did he get from his pledge not to interfere with slavery to a decision a year later to issue an emancipation proclamation? The answers lie in the Constitution and in the course of the Civil War. As an individual, Lincoln hated slavery. As a Republican, he wished to exclude it from the territories as the first step to putting the institution “in the course of ultimate extinction.”
