It would be an "absolute monarchy" that gives all power to one individual for life, since this person usually gains power either through hereditary succession of through violence.
Answer:
changes in government, before 1770 most countries were either monarchies, absolute monarchies, republics, city states, or empires afterwards came political theory and such on a much greater scale
Answer:
Explanation:
The British people had grown weary of the effort and cost of their twenty-year war against France, and the War of 1812 came to an end as a result. The minor war has ended now that Napoleon has been almost completely defeated. The War of 1812 was a watershed moment in American history. America won worldwide recognition as a result of its ability to bring the world's most powerful military force to a halt. It also instilled in its people a stronger sense of nationalism. In North America, opposition to the United States has waned. Hull's occupying army launched an assault on a British picket, which was forced to retreat to Amherstburg. Two British troops were inadvertently abandoned. They held their ground until they were apprehended. Private Hancock, one of them, died of his wounds later that evening, becoming the war's first British casualty.
(hope this helps can i plz have brainlist :D hehe)
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?
