I really really need help please please please help me find this answer

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

3 years ago

Japan's reason for expansion was...

UNO [17]

Answer:

Adolf Hitler, llamado también Adolfo Hitler en algunos países hispanos (Braunau am Inn, Linz, Alta Austria, Imperio austrohúngaro; 20 de abril de 1889 - Berlín; 30 de abril de 1945), fue un político, militar y dictador alemán de origen austríaco

Explanation:

El Imperio romano (latín: Imperium Romanum) fue el tercer periodo de civilización romana en la Antigüedad clásica, posterior a la República romana y caracterizado por una forma de gobierno autocrática. El nacimiento del Imperio viene precedido por la expansión de su capital, Roma, que extendió su control en torno al mar Mediterráneo. Bajo la etapa imperial los dominios de Roma siguieron aumentando hasta llegar a su máxima extensión durante el reinado de Trajano, momento en que abarcaba desde el océano Atlántico al oeste hasta las orillas del mar Caspio, el mar Rojo y el golfo Pérsico al este, y desde el desierto del Sahara al sur hasta las tierras boscosas a orillas de los ríos Rin y Danubio y la frontera con Caledonia al norte. Su superficie máxima estimada sería de unos 5 millones de km².

Era abril de 1917 y Washington le había declarado la guerra a Alemania, en lo que fue su implicación formal en la Primera Guerra Mundial.

En fotos: la Primera Guerra Mundial también se combatió con afiches

Como una estrategia para atraer la atención de futuros soldados, el ilustrador James Montgomery Flagg tuvo la tarea de crear un afiche que fuese lo suficientemente efectivo en su mensaje.

Así fue como dibujó a un hombre canoso, con una larga chiva y el ceño fruncido que apuntaba con el dedo.

<h2>SALUDOS Y ESPRO QUE TE SIRVA AMIGO O AMIGA </h2>

5 0

3 years ago

In American society, romantic love is considered the main reason for people to marry. On the other hand, in some societies, roma

patriot [66]

That would be A IN OTHER SOCIETIES

7 0

3 years ago

When a couple has children they need to __________________.

Dominik [7]

Answer:

A.) Seems right : re-evaluate their budget and add line items to include the extra cost of a child

Explanation:

4 0

2 years ago

Einhard was a member of Charlemagne’s court and described him as “my lord and foster-father”. He also wrote that, “no man can wr

Maurinko [17]

Answer:SINCE I have taken upon myself to narrate the public and private life, and no small part of the deeds, of my lord and foster-father, the most lent and most justly renowned King Charles, I have condensed the matter into as brief a form as possible. I have been careful not to omit any facts that could come to my knowledge, but at the same time not to offend by a prolix style those minds that despise everything modern, if one can possibly avoid offending by a new work men who seem to despise also the masterpieces of antiquity, the works of most learned and luminous writers. Very many of them, l have no doubt, are men devoted to a life of literary leisure, who feel that the affairs of the present generation ought not to be passed by, and who do not consider everything done today as unworthy of mention and deserving to be given over to silence and oblivion , but are nevertheless seduced by lust of immortality to celebrate the glorious deeds of other times by some sort of composition rather than to deprive posterity of the mention of their own names by not writing at all.

Be this as it may, I see no reason why I should refrain from entering upon a task of this kind, since no man can write with more accuracy than I of events that took place about me, and of facts concerning which I had personal knowledge, ocular demonstration as the saying goes, and I have no means of ascertaining whether or not any one else has the subject in hand.

In any event, I would rather commit my story to writing, and hand it down to posterity in partnership with others, so to speak, than to suffer the most glorious life of this most excellent king, the greatest of all the princes of his day, and his illustrious deeds, hard for men of later times to imitate, to be wrapped in the darkness of oblivion.

But there are still other reasons, neither unwarrantable nor insufficient, in my opinion, that urge me to write on this subject, namely, the care that King Charles bestowed upon me in my childhood, and my constant friendship with himself and his children after I took up my abode at court. In this way he strongly endeared me to himself, and made me greatly his debtor as well in death as in life, so that were I unmindful of the benefits conferred upon me, to keep silence concerning the most glorious and illustrious deeds of a man who claims so much at my hands, and suffer his life to lack due eulogy and written memorial, as if he had never lived, I should deservedly appear ungrateful, and be so considered, albeit my powers are feeble, scanty, next to nothing indeed, and not at all adapted to write and set forth a life that would tax the eloquence of a Tully [note: Tully is Marcus Tullius Cicero].

I submit the book. It contains the history of a very great and distinguished man; but there is nothing in it to wonder at besides his deeds, except the fact that I, who am a barbarian, and very little versed in the Roman language, seem to suppose myself capable of writing gracefully and respectably in Latin, and to carry my presumption so far as to disdain the sentiment that Cicero is said in the first book of the Tusculan Disputations to have expressed when speaking of the Latin authors. His words are: "It is an outrageous abuse both of time and literature for a man to commit his thoughts to writing without having the ability either to arrange them or elucidate them, or attract readers by some charm of style." This dictum of the famous orator might have deterred me from writing if I had not made up my mind that it was better to risk the opinions of the world, and put my little talents for composition to the test, than to slight the memory of so great a man for the sake of sparing myself.

Explanation:

did report made 93.6 plz mark brainist

4 0

3 years ago