Answer: A. a disagreement between the states over representation in Congress.
The main disagreement was over whether representation would be the same for all states, or based on a state's population size. Then there was also a question, for basing representation on population size, about whether slaves counted in a state's population or not.
The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise were worked out during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to resolve these issues.
- The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. Initially, a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature was envisioned. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
- The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
I maybe think its b im sorry if its wrong
<span>The ability to allow political parties to have a strong voice in national politics is an attribute of Proportional Represantation it's electoral system when political party is represented proportional to the persentage of total votes cast on that party</span>
Answer:
Option C, Republicans, is the right answer.
Explanation:
The Republican leaders or politicians opposed the Federalist views about government. While the Federalists favored a strong national government, the Republicans favoured a weak national government. Moreover, they were the ones who believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution and thus rejected the idea of implied powers and argued that the implied powers should be saved for emergencies.
