Which of the following best defines a two party system? a system in which only one party has a genuine chance at winning an election
a system in which only two parties have a genuine chance at winning an election
a system in which only two parties are legally allowed to exist
a system which does not favor any party over any other

i think that the answer is polishing peanuts

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005

the vast majority of ballots have been counted nearly two weeks after one of the biggest political upsets in modern u.s. history catapulted donald trump to the presidency.

estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like california continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the u.s. elections project.

but among those figures were stark contrasts in key states that swing the election to trump — in ohio, wisconsin, iowa, michigan and elsewhere — indicating the president-elect’s leap from long-shot candidate to the most powerful political position in the world may have happened in part because of apathy toward hillary clinton’s candidacy, especially among the democratic base, several political scientists and organizations monitoring voter turnout told the pbs newshour.

while clinton is leading the popular vote by more than 1.5 million over trump as of sunday, she trails president obama’s 2012 totals by more than 2 million ballots — a chasm that may have cost her the election, said david becker, co-founder of the center for election and innovation and research.

“several million voters didn’t come out to vote,” becker said. “which is telling me that this idea of the trump wave, a huge number of voters shifting over to trump, is certainly not the story.”