Answered
A minor party is a party that has broken away from a major party?
A splinter party is the name of a minor party that has broken away from a major party.
Results for: 3rd-party
Answered
Can you connect Active Directory to other 3rd-party Directory Services?
Yes. Microsoft Identity Integration Server (MIIS) is used to connect Active Directory to other 3rd-party Directory Services (including directories used by SAP, Domino, etc). … Yes We can Connect, by using dirxml and LDAP (MORE)
Answered
Why is there a Republican Party and a democratic party?
The Republican and Democratic parties exist due to the strikingly contrasting ethnic and cultural differences of each. Though both parties originally lacked ideological differ…ences, they were clearly separated by difference of beliefs in regards to issues of morality and liberalism. Democrats believed that the country's government should hold the power to set one concrete moral standard for the entire country. Contrarily, Republicans believed that the government had no place in regulating the moral affairs of society and called for more privacy on such issues. As religious and moral affairs touched Americans more personally than political matters might have, these differences caused an uproar of passionate competition and resulted in the formation of the Republican and Democratic parties. It is worth noting that the founding fathers of the United States, especially George Washington, opposed the creation of political parties. Washington felt that political parties were very negative for a democracy. The US Constitution does not mention political parties. There are two answers to the original question, depending on what the asker was after. If the answer being sought is "Why is there a Republican Party and a Democratic Party now?" - i.e. why do the US really only have two political parties - the answer lies in the practical consequences of the design of how we elect out representatives. All Federal elections in the United States are "winner-take-all" - that is, there is only a single office contending in a given election, and the "first-past-the-post" method of voting determines the winner. There is no runoff for candidates who don't get an absolute majority, nor is does the US use any sort of preferential voting system. All that counts in that the winner must get the absolute largest sum of votes of any candidate in that election. This form of voting means that the only real effective strategy of winning is to have a party which appears to the largest number of voters. There is no benefit in forming alliances with other parties, as only a single winner can be chosen, and votes can't be transferred. Thus, a party should espouse ideas that appeal to a large number of voters, while avoiding those which alienate large numbers. Generally speaking, that means that both parties will try to appeal to the middle 80% of a voter base, ignoring the outer 10% on the political idea spectrum. This means that there really can be two major parties, since a candidate needs to win the plurality of any election - a party realistically needs to be able to pull at least 40% of the vote to have any say in the Federal government. For example, let's say there are three parties: A which pulls about 45% of the vote, B which pulls 35% of the vote, and C which pulls 20% of the vote, averaged across all individual elections being run. Given that different areas have variable distribution of the above percentages, with winner-take-all elections, that means that the President will always be selected from either A or B, and Congress will most likely consist of at most 5% C, and 55% of A and 40% of B. Thus, while C is reasonably popular, it has virtually no political power. Also, in the above scenario, party B will find it highly profitable to find the most important issue for party C, and, if that issue isn't objectionable to it's normal membership, start promoting it. It will then be able to co-opt a large percentage of the normal C voters, increasing it's power. By doing this, the actual voting percentage moves to C = 5%, B = 50%, and A = 45%. This leads to a situation where any new idea or political movement is absorbed (and usually heavily moderated) by one of the two major parties. In addition, the local political process in the USA means that any party requires a very significant political organization to even get on the ballot, and the media generally refuses to give much attention to "fringe" parties, further reinforcing the 2-party system. If the answer being sought is "Why were the Republican and Democratic Parties formed?" - i.e. what's the history behind the creation of the Republican and Democratic Parties - then a bit of historical background is needed. The Democratic Party was originally founded as the Democratic-Republican Party in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to oppose the Federalist Party which had been founded a few years earlier by Alexander Hamilton. The D-R Party espoused what are known now as classical Jeffersonian Democracy views - isolationist, pro-agrarian, smaller central government. The Federalists favored a much stronger central government, what would now be called "internationalism", and were more pro-merchant. The D-R Party ended up splitting into two around the time of the 1824 presidential election; one faction, now called the Democratic Party, supported Andrew Jackson's candidacy, while the other faction, originally called the Republican Party (but soon changed its name to the Whig Party), opposed Jackson. The modern Democratic Party is a direct descendant from this Democratic Party of 1824. The modern Republican Party is also a descendant of this factionalization of the old D-R Party. In the 1850s, the Whig Party was split over the issue of slavery - in effect a very public North/South split inside the Party. The Northern branch of the Whigs became the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its first Presidential candidate. The Republican Party received a huge boost in power by being the dominant pro-Union/anti-slavery party of the 1860 election, and thus being the leader of the Union effort in the Civil War. (MORE)
Answered
How do you get into a party?
You first have to get invited to a party. Which means you have to be the party type person. No one will want to invite you in your boring and not to fun to hang out with.So be… a fun person. (MORE)
Answered
What to do on a party?
what u do at a party depends on if your hosting it or its someone else's party. if its your party:- *be a good host *have a few party games *talk a little about what going on… *eat a few snacks *etc... the most important thing is to enjoy yourself!!and have fun! (MORE)
Answered
Democratic-Republican Party What current party evolved from this party?
federalists republicans jefferson american The Jeffersonian Republican party, better known as the Democratic-Republican Party, is an ancestor of the modern DEMOCRATIC PA…RTY. It evolved in the 1790s during the early days of GEORGE WASHINGTON's presidency. Washington had been unanimously chosen president in 1789 and had a broad base of support. THOMAS JEFFERSON served as Washington's SECRETARY OF STATE, while ALEXANDER HAMILTON served as secretary of the treasury. Jefferson and his followers favored states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They believed that a powerful central government posed a threat to individual liberties. They viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest. Hamilton and his followers argued that a strong central government was essential to the unity of the new nation. They favored a broad interpretation of the Constitution, which they saw as a document that should evolve with the country as it grew. Virtually all the leading political figures of the new country, starting with Washington, believed that political parties would polarize citizens and paralyze government. Hamilton and Jefferson agreed with this notion, but by 1793 the two groups that they represented had broken off into separate factions. Hamilton's group became the Federalists, while Jefferson's faction adopted the name "Democratic Republicans." One early and divisive difference between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was how they approached Britain and France. The Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British interests, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties with the French. The Democratic-Republicans supported the government that had taken over France after the revolution of 1789. On economic matters, the Jeffersonians differed strongly with the Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the interests of the working classes-merchants, farmers, and laborers. They believed that an agrarian economy would best serve these citizens. They saw the establishment of a national BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that belonged to individual states, and they also believed that it would be tied too closely to the rich. The Federalists saw industry and manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic self-sufficiency. They favored the existence of protective tariffs on imports (which had Congress had adopted in 1789) both as a means of protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue. The ratification in 1795 of Jay's Treaty (named after JOHN JAY) sparked anger at the Federalists from a wide array of citizens. The British were still in control of fur-trading posts in the Northwest Territories, and they were accused of encouraging Indians to rise up against the Americans. British ships were seizing American ships and impressing American sailors; they were also prohibiting American ships from engaging in trade with the West Indies. Jay, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was sent to England as an envoy and returned with a treaty that gave the British a deadline for leaving the fur posts. Almost none of the other issues was addressed. A particularly unpopular provision of the treaty called for the U.S. to settle pre-Revolution debts to the British, totaling $2.6 million. Jeffersonians, and even many Federalists, felt that the treaty had been too generous to the British, although Hamilton saw it as a necessary action because Britain generated tariff revenues through its exports. In 1796, JOHN ADAMS (a Federalist) was elected the nation's second president with 71 electoral votes, defeating Jefferson by three votes. Jefferson became vice president. Meanwhile, relations with France were deteriorating rapidly. The notorious "XYZ Affair" in 1796 was typical of what Jeffersonians saw as the weakness of FEDERALISM. The XYZ AFFAIR involved an unsuccessful attempt by a French agent to exact bribes in exchange for France's cooperation in negotiating an international trade treaty. France, angered by the pro-British Jay's Treaty, began to interfere with American ships. An American delegation was sent to France, and the French demanded a loan to the French government as well as a $240,000 bribe. Although American public opinion hardened against the French, President Adams tried to repair the situation diplomatically, which angered many Federalists who thought that declaring war on France was the best course of action. This split within the FEDERALIST PARTY helped to ensure Jefferson's victory in the 1800 presidential election. Democratic-Republicans also won a majority of the seats in Congress. Jefferson's party dominated American politics for the next two decades. One reason was that the Jeffersonians proved themselves to be willing to adapt to change. An example was the LOUISIANA PURCHASE of 1803. As a Republican, Jefferson initially felt that the president did not have the power to make such a large purchase (828,000 square miles). He recognized, however, that the price of $15 million (about three cents per acre) was a significant bargain, and that the purchase would double the size of the U.S. and also eliminate the danger of having an imperialist French colony on its border. He went against his partisan instinct and made what he believed was the right decision for the country. During the WAR OF 1812, Jefferson's successor, JAMES MADISON, battled the British overseas and the Federalists at home. Many Federalists, especially in the New England states, felt that the war would irreparably damage their ability to trade by sea with Europe. This anti-war stance proved unpopular, however, since the war ended in what most Americans perceived as a victory over Great Britain. Thus the Federalists were soundly defeated in the 1816 presidential election. The new president, JAMES MONROE, presided over a time of relative political calm during which many Federalists came to support the Republicans. This period was known as the "Era of Good Feeling," and although Monroe enjoyed wide support during his two terms in office, various factions were developing within his own party. In the election of 1824, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS was elected president, narrowly defeating War of 1812 military hero ANDREW JACKSON. Although both were Democratic-Republicans, Adams's political philosophy was closer to that of the Federalists, and during his term in office the party split into two main factions. When Jackson ran for president in 1828, he ran as a Democrat-and won handily. Adams's wing of the party became known as the National Republicans, many of whom later formed the WHIG PARTY. (MORE)
Answered
In Uncategorized
What is better the you phone 5c or 5s?
the 5s because it has better service but it dosent have diffrent colrs just silver gold and black
Answered
What is 3rd party advertising?
someone other than the parties directly involved in the action or transaction; outsider with no legal interest in the matter.
Answered
What is the answer to 20c plus 5 equals 5c plus 65?
20c + 5 = 5c + 65 Divide through by 5: 4c + 1 = c + 13 Subtract c from both sides: 3c + 1 = 13 Subtract 1 from both sides: 3c = 12 Divide both sides by 3: c = 4
Answered
What is the unintentional consequence of 3rd parties?
In elections with two dominant parties, a 3rd party candidate can siphon off votes that might otherwise have gone to someone else. Two recent examples would be Ralph Nader… in 2000 and Ross Perot in 1992. (MORE)