Answer:
There are several countries without trains or railways. Most are either small countries on islands (Iceland for example, has none) or poor countries that really can't afford the cost of maintaining them. HOWEVER most of these countries HAVE HAD railways of some kind at one time or another (Guyana, for example has pretty much nothing but was in fact the first country in South America to have railways at all. Iceland also has had a few small railways built temporarily in the past for construction purposes).
As an aside, it is not always necessarily the countries fault that they have no railways. Many are former colonies of European countries that all had outside influence on the railway construction. Sometimes, if more than one power had a grip on an area, railways of completely different gauges (sizes) would be built by the opposing powers.
Also, the countries obviously only cared about the railways (and the colonies themselves) as a means to make THEM stronger, so the railway systems usually only consisted of a line going straight from whatever rare mineral or something that they wanted to the nearest port, for shipment back to the main country.
Not only were these impractical for serving the entire nation, they were (and still kinda are) a symbol of their former tyrants to the locals. So when the little countries finally broke away from their oppressors they often wanted little to do with railways or trains.
As far as lists of all the countries that don't have them, they aren't really complete, although train buffs like these guys will throw out some names and see if they've got trains or not.
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
As per the Median Voter theorem expresses that " a greater part rule casting a ballot framework will choose the result generally favored by the middle voter". In this way, on account of essential political race which is intended to choose a gathering's possibility for position - being referred to .For this situation the Median Voter Theorem functions admirably in light of the fact that right now competitor need to appreciate the benefits of " Median voter Theorem" where as in the General political race which is intended to choose who possesses the position itself however in these sort of situations where a typical arrangement is accessible Median voter Theorem has it's constraints and all in all races each applicant needs to take distinctive situation on various subjects and general decisions are not uni dimensional and a large portion of the occasions these positions are politically spurred thus, that is the reason up-and-comer normally don't follow Median voter Theorem,
Example
Where up-and-comer either endeavored to follow the middle voter - Scenario where there is a nation wide or party shrewd agreement regarding a matter " Issues like battle against debasement" at that point competitor for the most part follow the Median voter hypothesis.
Second part where competitor didn't follow the middle voter hypothesis these are where applicant just need to please it's supporters or certain segment of society "Like reduction in the Tax on the well off" for these situation up-and-comer doesn't follow middle voter hypothesis.
Truly when a competitor chose to doesn't follow middle voter hypothesis applicant carried on deliberately ,in light of the fact that considering up-and-comer this diverse situation from middle voter hypothesis increment there opportunities to win or increment it's prominence in certain area of society .
To the extent the person carried on morally this absolutely has a place with the competitors claim moral standard which can not be summed up.
The answer is true because priest goes on the top to prayer. to get closer to god I guess
