An argument to separate national elections from local elections is that <u>unqualified candidates can be elected to local office simply because they are the same party as a popular presidential candidate</u>
Explanation:
People usually vote for the same party regardless, but people can get extra focused on voting democrat or republican in national elections that they forget that a local candidate might not be qualified for the position. By having the elections separate, it allows people to focus on the local needs more than if the local and national elections were held together.
The correct answer is A) unqualified candidates can be elected to local office simply because they are the same party as a popular presidential candidate.
An argument to separate national elections from local elections is "unqualified candidates can be elected to local office simply because they are the same party as a popular presidential candidate."
So it is important to separate both in order for the citizens to really know the kind of candidate they need to vote for in a local election. This way, electors have the time to learn more about the candidate background, its degrees in college, its experience in politics or business, so voters can make the right choice
President Wilson’s proposal to form the League of Nations was most weakened by his illness while traveling to gain support" but replace "illness" with "inability" ^^
If the scenario is based on the spreading activation theory,
the result that occurred makes sense. It is because this theory focuses on
using the cognitive psychology in means of demonstrating or modelling out the
fan out effect. It is likely used for searching networks that are associated to
each other.
