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:
Explanation:
One point is earned for making an accurate comparison of both Federalist and Anti-federalist positions. The Federalists wanted a stronger national government and weaker state governments, while the Anti-federalists wanted a weaker national government and stronger state government.
The average citizen has the most impact on the government by voting in elections.
Answer: Option D
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The votes cast by citizens ultimately decide who their representative in the government would be. If the citizens cast vote to make an efficient candidate to win the election in order to make him/her represent the people in the government, it proves to be a boon.
If the people don't cast their votes or cast their votes to make an inefficient candidate win the election, then it may even prove to be disastrous at some point in time in the future of governance.
After the British takeover of the New Netherlands, the control of the entire economic and political affairs went into the hands of the English Crown.
<h3>What is the significance of the British takeover of the New Netherlands?</h3>
The British gained a control over the New Netherlands in the second half of the seventeenth century. After this takeover, there was complete transfer of the control of economic and political affairs of the society.
The event of the British takeover of the New Netherlands was led by Richard Nicholls at the New York Harbor. The Dutch readily gave the control in the British hands, avoiding a fight.
Hence, the significance of the British takeover of the New Netherlands is aforementioned.
Learn more about the British takeover of the New Netherlands here:
brainly.com/question/1498757
#SPJ1
