Answer:
The correct option are A, C and D
Explanation:
A. Geographical and topographical challenges make canal building difficult. True
Geographical and topographical conditions are very vital in canal building, on less steeper plain, canals can be build easily as compared to those lands where slopes are much more steeper hence canal building becomes difficult in such scenarios.
C. Weather-related problems, such as long periods of rain, can slow down the work. True
There is a danger of flooding during long periods of rain and also the working conditions become difficult for labors therefore, the process of canal building may slow down the progress of canal building.
D. Canals are time-consuming and expensive to build. True
Canal building is a difficult and time consuming task which requires usage of specialized machinery as well as trained personal who are skilled in canal building. The various costs involved in canal building includes the cost of digging, cost of labor, cost of machinery etc. Therefore, canal building is expensive as well as time consuming procedure.
He ended grain shipments to the Soviet Union.
He withdrew the SALT II treaty from consideration by the Senate.
He sent American troops to Afghanistan to force the Soviets to withdraw.
He withdrew the SALT II treaty from consideration by the Senate.
b)both have three branches of government
c)both hold elections once every four years
d)both have a single, powerful chief executive
if about Britain, then it is to create a help zone between Germany and USA. So that US cant attack Germany without first passing UK and attacking them.
hope you understand :)
Answer:
Explanation:
Not always. In fact, there have been
four presidential elections in which
the winner did not receive a majority
of the popular vote. The first of these was
John Quincy Adams in the election of 1824, and the
most recent occurred in 2000 in the presidential race
between george w. Bush and Al gore.
How does this happen?
The answer lies in the “Electoral College.” The
drafters of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a
system that balanced the interests of the (then) 13 states
and those of the American people. voters chose the
members of the House of representatives, but state
legislatures (also elected by the people) elected
U.S. senators. And states sent delegates to a body—
the Electoral College—that chose the president and Americans later amended the Constitution
to make the system more democratic. Beginning
in 1913, U.S. senators were elected directly by the
people. And while the Electoral College still officially
elects the president, the people choose the Electoral
College members.
Here’s how it works.
After the nationwide presidential election is held
in November, the Electoral College meets in december.
In most states, electors cast their votes based on how
the majority of voters in their state voted. The electors
vote in their states on december 15, and Congress
officially counts the results in January.
Each state has a number of electors equal to the
number of its members in the U.S. House of representatives—determined by a census of the the state’s population, plus its two senators. The district of Columbia,
which is not a state and has no voting representation
in Congress, has three Electoral College votes.
There are 538 electors in the Electoral
College; 270 electoral votes are needed to
win the presidential election.
most states award electoral votes on a
winner-take-all basis. The presidential ticket that
gets the most citizens’ votes receives all that state’s
electoral votes. Two states—Nebraska and maine—have experimented
with awarding their electoral votes proportionately
based on citizens’ votes. presidential election strategy
consists of “carrying” a combination of states that
adds up to 270 electoral votes. Election results can
turn on the electoral votes in a handful of competitive
state races.
one consequence of the winner-take-all system
is that a candidate can win the most votes nationally
but lose the election.
Imagine that a candidate wins a state by a small
margin and that state has a lot of electoral votes. That
candidate would still receive all of the electoral votes.
So if a candidate wins in California by a small margin,
they get all 55 of California’s electoral votes. That same
candidate may lose in other, smaller states by large
margins and receive fewer popular votes than his
or her opponent. But that candidate would still have
the edge in the Electoral College. I hoped it's helps .
A presidential candidate can win the most popular votes but not win the election due to the operation of the U.S. Electoral College. In most states, whoever wins the most votes secures all of that state's electoral votes (winner-take-all system).
The reason why a presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes might not win the election is due to the operation of the U.S. Electoral College. The Electoral College is a group of people known as electors who are indirectly selected to vote for the president. The winning candidate only needs to secure a majority of these electoral votes, not the majority of a nationwide popular vote.
For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, garnering over 2.9 million more nationwide votes than Donald Trump. However, Trump won more electoral votes because he received the majority of votes in several key states, a reflection of the winner-take-all system employed by most states. This system means the candidate with the most votes in a state wins all of the state's electoral votes.
U.S. elections are based on plurality voting, a first-past-the-post system where the candidate with the most votes wins. A candidate does not necessarily need to receive 51% (a majority) of the total votes. Cases also exist where votes for third party candidates draw sufficient votes away from a major candidate, altering the distribution of electoral votes. In sum, the U.S. Electoral College and the winner-take-all voting system can result in scenarios where a candidate wins the presidency without winning the popular vote.
#SPJ2