Should the united states do away with the electoral college? would
providing a more direct influence for citizens improve presidential
elections? or does the system work fine? or should electoral college votes
be split within states, as they are in nebraska and maine? if students want to
do away with the electoral college, what system do they want in its place? a
one-person-one-vote systemawould such a system make candidates ignore
small states?

Bush won the presidential discretionary school without the well-known vote (pg. 403)" although this is tragic, it is exceptionally improbable to happen it has just happened three times up until this point. I, for one, think the framework works fine. If understudies did consistently with the structure, I accept they would utilize the one individual one vote strategy

Since the Civil War, all states have picked presidential balloters by prominent vote. Maine and Nebraska utilize the congressional area strategy, choosing one voter inside each congressional region by well-known vote and choosing the staying two balloters by a statewide prevalent vote.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.

your answer would b. the missisipi river

hope i you : )