BackpropBuff/adversarial_qa_adversarialQA huggingface dataset:
Question: What was the difference with the two managers?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success
Question: Who had a hard time gaining the proper leader?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:Everton
Question: How did Royle differ from the two managers before?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final
Question: What did Royle do to right the ship?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool
Question: Who did well at first, but not later?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:Howard Kendall
Question: What was an issue with the club?Everton were founder members of the Premier League in 1992, but struggled to find the right manager. Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date. When former Everton player Joe Royle took over in 1994 the club's form started to improve; his first game in charge was a 2–0 victory over derby rivals Liverpool. Royle dragged Everton clear of relegation, leading the club to the FA Cup for the fifth time in its history, defeating Manchester United 1–0 in the final.

Answer:Howard Kendall had returned in 1990 but could not repeat his previous success, while his successor, Mike Walker, was statistically the least successful Everton manager to date
Question: where was Everton supposed to locate to?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:a new stadium
Question: Which is not a club, Liverpool or Stanley Park?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Stanley Park
Question: Why did the plans fall through?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake
Question: Which came later, the indications Everton will move to a new stadium or talks with Liverpool F.C about sharing a stadium?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium
Question: Which of the following is the name of a football team: Northwest, Everton or Stanley Park?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Everton
Question: Which had more seats, the original plan or the King's Dock regeneration plan?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:original plan
Question: Who talked with Liverpool F.C.?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Northwest Development Corporation
Question: Why did the 55,000 seat proposal fail?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:£30 million
Question: What area did they wish to revive with their proposal?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:King's Dock
Question: Why were they unable to build the stadium as porposed?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Everton failed to generate the £30 million
Question: Which is not a name of a team, Everton or Stanley?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Stanley
Question: how many seats had they first hoped to build?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:60,000-seat
Question: What ultimately happened to the Everton Stadium?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility
Question: Who was responsible for the second proposal failing?There have been indications since 1996 that Everton will move to a new stadium. The original plan was for a new 60,000-seat stadium to be built, but in 2000 a proposal was submitted to build a 55,000 seat stadium as part of the King's Dock regeneration. This was unsuccessful as Everton failed to generate the £30 million needed for a half stake in the stadium project, with the city council rejecting the proposal in 2003. Late in 2004, driven by Liverpool Council and the Northwest Development Corporation, the club entered talks with Liverpool F.C. about sharing a proposed stadium on Stanley Park. Negotiations broke down as Everton failed to raise 50% of the costs. On 11 January 2005, Liverpool announced that ground-sharing was not a possibility, proceeding to plan their own Stanley Park Stadium.

Answer:city council
Question: Who is not responsible for representing the party as spokesperson: leader or the chair?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:chair
Question: If party does not hold the presidency, who is leader, rarely?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:big-state governor
Question: Who handles the finances of a political party?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:treasurer
Question: Who is the top party executive?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:president
Question: What makes it hard to determine the party leader sometimes?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:structure is far more decentralized
Question: What makes the US different?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:The structure is far more decentralized
Question: What is a higher position: leader or secretary?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:leader
Question: Who speaks on behalf of the party?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:leader
Question: What is a higher position: president or governor?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:president
Question: What is different about a chairman?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:status
Question: What is the root problem of a decentralized government?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects
Question: Who determines the standards of a party?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:executive
Question: Who in the party does most of the money accounting?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:treasurer
Question: People in power over political parties are usually?A political party is typically led by a party leader (the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the party), a party secretary (who maintains the daily work and records of party meetings), party treasurer (who is responsible for membership dues) and party chair (who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings). Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects. Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U.S. will be the president, if the party holds that office, or a prominent member of Congress in opposition (although a big-state governor may aspire to that role). Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders.

Answer:members of the party executive
Question: What situation in a dominant party system creates the circumstances of a one-part system?In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between dominant and one-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Cambodian People's Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from the early 1970s until 1998.

Answer:voting fraud
Question: What example of a one-party system is given for North America?In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between dominant and one-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Cambodian People's Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from the early 1970s until 1998.

Answer:the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s
Question: Which country in Asia had a one-party dominant system until very late in the 20th century?In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between dominant and one-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Cambodian People's Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from the early 1970s until 1998.

Answer:Indonesia
Question: Which of the following is not a reason to remain in power of a party in a less established democratic tradition: patronage, economic circumstances, voting fraud?In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between dominant and one-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Cambodian People's Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from the early 1970s until 1998.

Answer:economic circumstances
Question: A person that does not belong to a specific group is called?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:Outsider
Question: Turkey is a country classfied in what category of countries?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:European
Question: What is the main point of the passage?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation
Question: Conventional or normal ideas, attitudes, or activities are described as?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:mainstream
Question: Which group seems to be deemed not good overall?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:"Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government
Question: What conclusion is made in the passage?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions
Question: A prefix with an origin in the Latin language is?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:anti
Question: In the American Civil War, the two sides that faced off against each other were the Confederacy and who else?Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitarian which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitarian, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections – along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government – has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.

Answer:Union
Question: What happened in to the political controversies in 1816?Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan, early political controversies in the 1790s over the extent of federal government powers saw the emergence of two proto-political parties- the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, which were championed by Framers Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively. However, a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.

Answer:a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics
Question: What 18th century movement eventually gave the name to the USA's current major political parties?Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan, early political controversies in the 1790s over the extent of federal government powers saw the emergence of two proto-political parties- the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, which were championed by Framers Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively. However, a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.

Answer:Democratic-Republican Party