Answer:
A. State laws can ensure fair access for voters to registration and polling places
Explanation:
It is Option A. because when State laws ensure fair access for voters to registration and polling places, every eligible voters or electorates will be given adequate chance and opportunity to vote whoever they believe will represent their interest without biases to another candidate or party. Hence, the right answer is Option A.
It is not option B, because when State laws prohibit political speech if it is considered controversial, that equates to suppression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which will eventually results to campaigns being restricted. Thus, this action by the State will not support a fair election process.
It is not Option C. because when State laws restrict voting if the government has a good reason, then some electorates will be disenfranchised, and the election result, will not show the true reflection of the people's will. Thus, this action by the state will not support a fair election process.
It is not Option D. because when State laws benefit some people and hurt others to keep an election fair, those the laws hurt, will be disenfranchised, and that will show biases from the government towards a particular candidate or party over others. Thus, this action by the state will not support a fair election process.
Answer:
19:95
Explanation:
The ratio is asking for spanish club and the total, so just find how many in spanish club and find total
Answer:
Madison argued in favor of a larger republic
Explanation:
According to his paper "Federalist 10", Madison argued that a representative body that is too small be insufficient to represent all of the interests and opinions of the nation. The larger the representative body, the better since it allows more opinions and prevents tyranny.
"...the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy...is enjoyed by a large over a small republic," (Third to last paragraph of Federalist 10)
The critical World War I battles were fought primarily along the trench lines of France and Belgium.
hope this helps
One way thing that the US could do about monopies is regulating them by breaking a monopoly up. In certain cases, government may decide a monopoly needs to be broken up because the firm has become too powerful. This rarely occurs. For example, the US looked into breaking up Microsoft, but in the end the action was dropped. This tends to be seen as an extreme step, and there is no guarantee the new firms won’t collude.
