According to the article, in 2002, rhode island had an advisory referendum on whether citizens favored altering the state constitution to make all three branches of government coequal. voters overwhelming voted yes, but the nonbinding referendum did not force legislators to act one way or the other. in a couple of short paragraphs, explain whether you think this type of referendum is useful and beneficial. what are the benefits of having a direct, binding referendum? what are the drawbacks?

Referendums are elections in which voters do not elect representatives but participate in taking direct participation on some important issue of the country. As advantages, it is highlighted that the Referendum can be used to solve problems of a political nature, or the improvement of the governmental image, when it is too deteriorated in front of the popular collective. Another aspect that touches a possible disadvantage, has to do with the circumstance that can be used as a strategy or political weapon to satisfy political interests or ambitions of power. It has also been argued that this figure has a meaning called "zero sum", that is, where the majority wins everything and the minority loses everything, originating a tyranny of majorities, that have answered one or several questions about a specific issue and that in the case at hand, has to do with the end of the armed conflict, questions that are closed and must be answered with the yes or no.

i think the answer would happen to be the letter b

because the bar never runs out

couples always argue

is this a question? put a question ?