2. 职称英语
  3. Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a

Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a

游客2025-01-16  10
问题     Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a birthright. But the irony is that, even as we hope to spread democracy elsewhere, we risk preaching the virtues of a form of government we no longer practice ourselves. The upcoming elections, our proudest celebration of democracy, will highlight some of the threats to our government "by the people".
    Technically, every vote is counted. But will the ballot you cast really make a difference? Not likely, unless you live in one of about 17 battleground states where the contest between President Bush and Senator Kerry could easily go either way. If you come from a state that is already locked up by one of the parties and most of us do — your vote won’t carry much weight. That’s because of our idiosyncratic electoral college system.
    Rather than being elected directly by the people, the President would be chosen by a group of electors appointed by the state legislatures — with the number of electors determined by the state’s total number of representatives to Congress and U.S. Senators. By allotting two Senators to each state, our founders enabled small states to wield an influence greater than their populations alone would warrant, ensuring that the most populous states wouldn’t decide every Presidential election. But here’s the rub: When it comes to those electoral votes, it’s winner-take-all (except in Maine, and Nebraska). Get more popular votes, even if only by one, and you grab all of the state’s electoral votes.
    There’s yet another way that the electoral system undermines our vote. In 2000, the Presidential campaigns largely ignore the 33 states that weren’t up for grabs. Even California, Texas and New York — states offering many electoral votes but little partisan competition — fell by the wayside. If victory or defeat depended on the popular vote, then candidates would have to work for each one. Instead, they decide which states are in play, and go after the voter there. They rarely visit other places and the majority of us don’t experience a real campaign.
    Here’s one idea that could help us in future Presidential elections. In a number of countries, they have a system of direct popular vote, but with a critical provision, in the event that no one wins by a majority, they hold an "instant runoff". That’s done by allowing voters to register not only their first choice among the candidates, but also their second and third, if a run-off is needed (say, if the winner among several candidates has less than 50 percent of vote). You can eliminate the candidate with the lowest tally, and transfer his or her supporters to the second choice on their ballots. This process can play out until there is a clear victor. This system give weight to every person’s vote — something our system of electors will never do. Only a Constitutional amendment, however, can bring about this change.  [br] Which of the following statements is NOT true, according to the passage?
选项 A、Some popular votes may carry more weight than others.
B、The outcome of the election depends on the electoral votes.
C、One can win the election only by getting more popular votes.
D、The electoral system prevents the most populous states from deciding every election.
答案 C
解析 这是道上下文理解题。解题句是第三段的“By allotting two Senators to each state, our founders enabled small states to wield an influence greater than their populations alone would warrant, ensuring that the most populous states wouldn t decide every Presidential election. But here s the rub: When it comes to those electoral votes, it’s winner-take-all(except in Maine, and Nebraska). Get more popular votes, even if only by one, and you grab all of the state s electoral votes.”通过分配每个州两名参议员的名额，我们的先辈们使得各个小州拥有比它们人口比例更大的影响力，保证了即使人口众多的大州也不能左右总统选举的结果。但是矛盾的是，在决定选举票数的时候，得票多者却可以独揽胜局(除了马里兰和内布拉斯加州)。只要获得哪怕多一张的选票，你就左右了整个州的选票结果。像这道题目考生有时可以考虑用排除法，只要找到文中和题目的四个选项中的一项是相悖的，那么就可以找到该题的答案。此题的第三个选项“one can win the election only by getting more popular votes”和原文的“Get more popular votes, even if only by one, and you grab all of the state’s electoral votes.”选项的意思是只有得到更多的普通选票候选者才能赢得选举和原文的“获得更多的普通选票，即使是多一张，根据胜利者全拿的原则，他就可以得到这个选区的所有选票”意思是不一样的。因此可以排除了C，故选C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3914650.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)