US Election

 

 

1. What was your overall impression on the US voting processes during the pandemic?
a. What were the people’s moods those who participated the vote- cheerful, grumpy, stoic, anxious, violence
etc.
b. Were they talking, helping each other while waiting on lines?
2. How does this project change/reinforce your perception on your neighborhood?
a. Specify the NAME your neighborhood
b. Describe the physical layouts of the poll station
c. Does your observation at the poll station differ than daily activities of your neighbors at a local grocery store,
a restaurant, or a bank?
3. If you have a power to change the voting process, what would be the 3 things you want to improve the voting
process during the pandemic?
please do not use any sources.

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Solution

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Long before COVID-19 hit American shores, studious commentators of American politics expressed concern on the public’s faith and confidence in the results of the November 2020 elections. Whereas, just 10 years ago, apprehensions with peaceful transfer of power were less common, Americans can no longer take for granted that election losers will concede a closely-fought election after election authorities or courts have declared a winner. This is because current American politics is mediated by hyperpolarization of Spartan proportions and an increasingly partisan media and social media environment (Torres-Spelliscy, 2019). Incendiary rhetoric regarding about rigged or stolen elections is on the rise, and unsubstantiated claims of rigged elections find a receptive audience especially among those who are on the losing end of elections.

buse among activists and lawyers attempting to circumvent democratic procedures. Unlike the U.S., which has been at the forefront of collective actions with its far-reaching class action regime, European states have traditionally been hesitant to adopt such an expansive and powerful redress mechanism. While great uncertainty exists as to the scope and potential impact of its private right of action, the immediate complaints pending in European courts highlight the potentially devastating roles that private actors may end up playing in GDPR enforcement.
Generally, individuals have two routes to vindicate an alleged infringement of their privacy rights under the GDPR. First, under Articles 77 and 78(2), they can lodge a complaint against the infringing company with a supervisory authority, and if the supervisory authority fails to conduct an investigation, the private actor can seek a judicial remedy against the supervisory authority. Second, under Articles 79 and 82, the private actor can seek a judicial remedy directly against the infringing company for damages. Additionally, Article 80(1) allows non-profit organization – like NYOB – to represent (and even receive compensation on behalf of) an individual, as long as the organization’s statutory objectives are in the public interest and the organization is active in the space of data rights.

In its complaints against Google, Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, NOYB alleges that the companies’ privacy policies “forced” consent in violation of Article 4(11)’s enhanced requirement that consent be “freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous.” NOYB claims that consent is illegitimate in situations where it is offered in a “take it or leave it” fashion because there is not a genuine choice to accept or decline without repercussion. For example, NOYB argues that consumers must either accept Google’s entire privacy policy and consent to all data processing or be denied access to the service entirely and give up access to their Gmail account, which is the default requirement to use Android phones and for signing into YouTube and several other Google Internet services.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.