What might the consequences be if electors were allowed to vote differently than for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support?

Answer:

Electors are typically chosen and nominated by a political party or the party's presidential nominee: they are usually party members with a reputation for high loyalty to the party and its chosen candidate. Thus, a faithless elector runs the risk of party censure and political retaliation from their party, as well as potential legal penalties in some states. Candidates for electors are nominated by state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, such as Indiana, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way other candidates are nominated. In other states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their candidates for elector (an attempt to discourage faithless electors). In some states, high-ranking and/or well-known state officials up to and including governors often serve as electors whenever possible (the Constitution prohibits federal officials from acting as electors, but does not restrict state officials from doing so). The parties have generally been successful in keeping their electors faithful, leaving out the rare cases in which a candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote.

What is used to make a cast of a tool mark?
Question 17 options:

a. Resin

b.Silicone rubber

c.Plaster of Paris

d.All of the above

Read the following scenario and answer the question below.

The president has just vetoed a controversial budget bill passed by Congress last week.

Which role of the president is represented in the scenario?

A.Head of state
B.Cheif diplomat
C.Commander in chief
D.Head of the executive branch

NEED HELP ASAP I WILL GIVE BRAINLEST

Discuss what are the bases or technicalities for not granting patent.

Which development most contributed to greater economic connections
between countries since the mid-20th century?

One of a physician’s patients, a well-respected citizen in a small community, saw the doctor with a complaint of blood in his urine (hematuria). The physician asked the patient if he’d had any new sexual partners recently, and the patient admitted that he had. The physician explained to the patient that his urine specimen had been positive for the STI chlamydia. The physician urged the patient to discuss his medical condition with the patient’s wife, who was also the physician’s patient, but the man was reluctant.

Discussion Questions:

If the patient refuses to confide in the wife, what should the physician do?
What are the legal issues in this case? What are the ethical issues?