There are several reasons to support this. Back in the 1950's and 60's, the high unemployment rate equated to high Democratic backing. The democratic backing rose significantly as more and more issues surfaced. State Legislation which were controlled by the democrats redrew congressional district maps.
This made it difficult for the Republicans to win House seats. Up until the 90's till today, it is evident that democrats tend to do better in low-turnout districts as compared to the republicans who tend to do well in high-turnout district and thus, dominate congress. According to very many political science evidence, till date, suggest that electoral system has no partisan bias.
The property owned by individuals or companies not by the government or the people as a whole is called private property
A, it sets standards for professional conduct!
Answer:
I think It's the unanaimous support one because the rest are all true, it did build on momentum and try to desegregate Atlanta. Sorry If I am wrong
Explanation:
Answer:Income inequality increased.
Explanation:
Income inequality increased. The rate of poverty at the end of Reagan's term was the same as in 1980. Cutbacks in income transfers during the Reagan years helped increase both poverty and inequality. Changes in tax policy helped increase inequality, but reduced poverty. These policy shifts are not the only reasons for the lack of progress against poverty and the rise in inequality. Broad social and economic factors have been widening income differences and making it harder for families to stay out of poverty. Policy choices during the Reagan Administration reinforced those factors.
Source/Reference:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/H95U-EX9E-QPM2-XA94?journalCode=joha
