1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
lbvjy [14]
2 years ago
11

According to the article, in 2002, Rhode Island had an advisory referendum on whether citizens favored altering the state consti

tution to make all three branches of government coequal. Voters overwhelming voted yes, but the nonbinding referendum did not force legislators to act one way or the other. In a couple of short paragraphs, explain whether you think this type of referendum is useful and beneficial. What are the benefits of having a direct, binding referendum? What are the drawbacks?
History
1 answer:
RUDIKE [14]2 years ago
4 0

Referendums are elections in which voters do not elect representatives but participate in taking direct participation on some important issue of the country. As advantages, it is highlighted that the Referendum can be used to solve problems of a political nature, or the improvement of the governmental image, when it is too deteriorated in front of the popular collective. Another aspect that touches a possible disadvantage, has to do with the circumstance that can be used as a strategy or political weapon to satisfy political interests or ambitions of power. It has also been argued that this figure has a meaning called "zero sum", that is, where the majority wins everything and the minority loses everything, originating a tyranny of majorities, that have answered one or several questions about a specific issue and that in the case at hand, has to do with the end of the armed conflict, questions that are closed and must be answered with the yes or no.

You might be interested in
What is the main way a representative democracy differs from a direct democracy?
Korolek [52]

____________________________________________________

Answer:

Your answer would be A). Citizens elect leaders who vote on the issues in a representative democracy, and citizens vote on the issues in a direct democracy.

____________________________________________________

In a representative democracy, Citizens elect leaders who vote on the issues. In a direct democracy, citizens vote on the issues.

____________________________________________________

Definition:

Representative Democracy:

Citizens vote for representatives to vote for issues in the country. The outcome of the situation is only determined by the votes of the representatives

Direct Democracy:

Citizens are the ones that could vote on a issue or topic. People directly decide on policies from voting.

____________________________________________________

Explanation:

The reason why A). Citizens elect leaders who vote on the issues in a representative democracy, and citizens vote on the issues in a direct democracy is CORRECT is because it is the right definitions for the two democracies. The representative democracy has citizens who vote for a  representative who votes for the people, while the direct democracy is votes that are directly decided by the Citizens. These two democracies are very different, and could range depending on what country it is applied to. Direct democracy is a very hard democracy, especially when the population is very high for a certain country. Countries with high populations usually use a representative democracy.

____________________________________________________

Why the other answer choices are incorrect:

Answer choice B). A representative democracy is modern, and a direct democracy is ancient. is INCORRECT because:

Both democracies were used in the ancient times, and are still used till this day around the world. Both democracies has been used in the Ancient times, and there is no way to call one of the democracies "out dated" since people before also decided if they wanted to use a representative democracy or a direct democracy.

Answer choice C). A representative democracy works better in small groups, and a direct democracy works better in large groups is INCORRECT because:

It is actually the opposite way around. A representative democracy works better with large populations, while a direct democracy works with a smaller population. If it was the opposite way around , the systems wouldn't function the way they were suppose to be. A direct democracy in a high populated country would be a mess since they would have to take every citizens votes. And having representatives in a small populated country wouldn't make any sense either

Answer choice D). Citizens’ desires are ignored in a representative democracy, and citizens’ desires have a better chance of being heard in a direct democracy is INCORRECT because:

Both democracies listen to what the citizens want. In the representative democracy, even though there are representatives who vote, the representatives represent what the people want, and the representatives don't vote from their own decision, they tend to listen to what the people want, and decide if what the citizens want is right or not. Citizens are NOT ignored in a representative democracy. One democracy doesn't have a higher chance of a citizens voice to be heard.

____________________________________________________

-Julie

8 0
2 years ago
3.
zalisa [80]
The battle of Saratoga
8 0
3 years ago
how did the communes introduced by mao zedong differ from the earlier collective farms in china? how successful were these commu
jeka94

The introduction of communism by mao Zedong is different from the earlier collective farms in China because Mao Zedong exemplifies that communism was to have equality and that you will have where to live and what to eat and during this time, China was in devastation because of the failure of the dynasties and for poor people was really happy to hear about that promises of mao Zedong and how good is communism, however, mao Zedong did not mention that he will take all of their rights and force them to work for the state.

4 0
3 years ago
What did it mean that India was the "Jewel in the Crown”?
Svetach [21]
They had<span> all sorts of goods that the British wanted. These included things like spices, textiles, cotton, and the opium that the British </span>would<span> sell in China to be able to buy tea. Because </span>India had<span> so many people and so much wealth, it was the "</span>jewel in the crown<span>" of the British Empire.

Hope this helps!</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Which statement describes why historians might want to use a primary source to study an event?
makvit [3.9K]

they would use that because that could give infomation that could be helpful

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Paraphrase this for me please. 15 points because it is pretty short. I'll also mark brainliest!
    15·1 answer
  • What did the government do to segregate the population
    15·2 answers
  • What is the structure of our national legislative branch?
    11·1 answer
  • Explain the meaning of this cartoon for a reader in 1867.
    11·2 answers
  • In what year did Edwin Drake's oil well occur?​
    9·1 answer
  • Why is it difficult for historns to study early human societies
    9·1 answer
  • Senator Ramirez listens to her constituents’ wishes on every piece of legislation, but always votes her conscience, even if it g
    9·1 answer
  • Read this excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter
    15·2 answers
  • How did European imperialism change over the course of the 19th century?
    6·2 answers
  • Describe the difference between European and Native American attitudes toward land use and land ownership.
    13·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!