Third parties generally serve only to take votes from one of the main parties. Third parties generally serve only to take votes from one of the main parties. If the third party has a candidate promising similar things to the Rep. candidate, the Democrats are more likely to win simply because their votes are not being siphoned off. Think of it this way: if a school class were to vote on favorite colors and there were only blue and red to choose from, it would probably be mostly equal. But if the same class were to vote for blue, teal, and red, I would be willing to bet that red would win just because its votes weren't being split like the blue votes were. Teal is the third party. It won't ever win on its own, but it can be influential in that it can help the opposite party win.
Tbh I like both. I can’t choose
The answer to your question is A
Answer:
Option(B),Option(C), Option(E) and Option(G) is the correct answer to the given question .
Explanation:
Mission information
In this question option is missing following are the option to the given question
(A) military branches
(B)individual citizens
(C)interest groups
(D) legislators
(E) political parties
(F) foreign diplomats
(G) media organizations
The main objective of the public policy in the government agencies translated the policy platform into there projects as well as decisions to produce the results.The public policy defined the general aspect of the government such as legislation , judicial decisions and the applicable laws.
- The public policy is the combination of many individuals , companies, non-profit organizations such as charities and the political parties are participated for cooperating in the public to persuade the corporate leaders to behave in the specific way.
- All the other option are not to providing the influence of the creation of the public policy that's why these are incorrect option .
Answer:
They believed that if the federal government had control of the army and the militia it would be very dangerous, because the government would have a strong centralization of power.
Explanation:
For anti-federalists, allowing the government to have centralized control of the militia would give a lot of power to the head of federal control, that is, it would give a lot of power to the president. This could promote a strong abuse of power, as the country's armed forces would be controlled by a single person, who would be too powerful to be prevented from acting as he wished.
