Explanation:
ermmmmmmmmm what's the questions haha
Answer:Machiavelli’s realism
Niccolò Machiavelli, whose work derived from sources as authentically humanistic as those of Ficino, proceeded along a wholly opposite course. A throwback to the chancellor-humanists Salutati, Bruni, and Poggio, he served Florence in a similar capacity and with equal fidelity, using his erudition and eloquence in a civic cause. Like Vittorino and other early humanists, he believed in the centrality of historical studies, and he performed a signally humanistic function by creating, in La mandragola (1518; The Mandrake), the first vernacular imitation of Roman comedy. His unswerving concentration on human weakness and institutional corruption suggests the influence of Boccaccio; and, like Boccaccio, he used these reminders less as topical satire than as practical gauges of human nature. In one way at least, Machiavelli is more humanistic (i.e., closer to the classics) than the other humanists, for while Vittorino and his school ransacked history for examples of virtue, Machiavelli (true to the spirit of Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus) embraced all of history—good, evil, and indifferent—as his school of reality. Like Salutati, though perhaps with greater self-awareness, Machiavelli was ambiguous as to the relative merits of republics and monarchies. In both public and private writings—especially the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531; Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy)—he showed a marked preference for republican government, but in The Prince (1532) he developed, with apparent approval, a model of radical autocracy. For this reason, his goals have remained unclear.
Explanation:
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Indeed, young people have historically failed to participate in the election process - fewer young people vote than those of other age groups.
I think this occurs because young people feel there is a lot of corruption and lies in the political system, and that politicians do not act with integrity.
Many youngsters notice how legislators endlessly argue with each other in the House of Representatives and the Senate, or how is the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch. And they don't like what they see. They turn to the other side
How does this negatively impact democracy in the US?
Of course, that behavior is not good because youngsters are the next generation that is going to run the United States.
They have to be prepared, informed, ready to fill the highest political spots and corporative spots to take the US into the next decade. And if they are not informed and actively participate in politics, it is going to be difficult for them to understand what the country needs to move forward.
The Effect of Miranda vs. Arkansas