If checks and balances didn't exist, there would be nothing stopping a group i.e. the president, from making whatever laws they wanted.
In essence, if there are no checks and balances, government is no longer a democracy because nothing prevents the group in power from doing what they want. For example, a president that wasn't checked by the opposition party could pass a law saying that they are legally allowed to be president until they die, and nobody would stop them.
<h2><u>Answer:</u></h2>
Disappointed by this apparent out of line treatment, ranchers swung to gatherings, for example, the Populist Party to endeavor to address their. Agriculturists had issues with the railways in the late 1800s. The agriculturists trusted they weren't being dealt with decently or similarly by the railroad organizations.
The issues confronting the agriculturist of the late nineteenth Century were wide. They extended from falling harvest costs, to uncalled for treatment by the railways, and furthermore the battle to have silver instituted as cash, in exertion to expand the estimation of a dollar.
Agriculturists trusted that loan fees were too high on account of monopolistic moneylenders, and the cash supply was deficient, delivering emptying. A falling cost dimension expanded the genuine weight of obligation, as ranchers reimbursed advances with dollars worth essentially more than those they had acquired.
I believe that is known as Gerrymandering.
C)
It's when you manipulate boundaries to favor a certain party.
