1)Please use this google drive link to download the answer file.       

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14EKyI6gJh5qEL9xoAwynzL43egt1pwUm/view?usp=sharing

Note: If you have any trouble in viewing/downloading the answer from the given link, please use this below guide to understand the whole process. 

https://helpinhomework.org/blog/how-to-obtain-answer-through-google-drive-link 

2)

The direct democracy and the representative democracy are both parts or components of the broader notion of democratic form of government or political system. In a direct democracy the main political power or the authority of political governance lies in the hands of common people or the civilians instead of the government officials, representatives, or the ministers running and administering the entire political system or machinery. On the other hand, under the representative democracy or the indirect democracy the common people or the civilians elect their preferred political officials or representatives who represent or incorporate the public will and interest while formulating and undertaking any political decision or action as they usually hold the main political power or authority indirectly through public representation. Direct democracy generally provides political power directly to the general people or civilians in which the common people can directly participate in the political decision making process and every individual political opinion or decision is directly registered while undertaking any political action or decision. But, on the contrary, representative democracy allows for an indirect political representation of public interests and will through a democratic election process of political representatives, ministers, or officials under which the common people indirectly convey their political opinions and expectations through the political actions and decisions undertaken by the officials or representatives. For example, in the United States several towns or municipal cities in the federal state of Massachussets may held various local town meetings for the local residents to vote on decisions pertaining to different political, economic, and social issues such as the city or town budgets, salaries and/or pentions, local law and order, etc. which essentially exemplifies the direct democratic setting.

The democratic electoral or public voting system in direct and representative democracies also exhibits structural and procedural differences. In a direct democracy, usually legislative referendums are used to ask the common citizens or civilians about their opinion about various political mandates or laws and they can either upheld those mandates or laws or repeal them based on individual discretion. In few federal states in the United States such as California, Massachusets, Utah, etc. such legislative referendums and/or initiatives are officially used for the common civilians or citizens to either support/ratfy or invalidate/repeal any political law or policy enacted by the respective state governments in conformity with the relevant and pertinent constitutional principles. On the other hand, under the representative democratic system, any political representative or official is elected through a proper majority public voting or electoral procedures in which the common people or citizens can cast their votes to elect or choose their preferred candidates as the desired political representatives, officials, or ministers. The procedural mechanism of the presidential election and the election of the members of the Congress are the most common practical examples of representative democracy under the American democratic system. Moreover, the direct democracy is often considered as a relatively more direct and transparent for of political system and governance as the common or general people can directly and actively participate in any political decision making process. However, a representative democracy doesn't allow for a direct and active involvement of general people or citizen in the political governance and law/policymaking process and depends entirely on the elected officials and representatives for the same resulting in less transparency and more practical complexity. For example, the general citizens might not know which particular laws and policies are being considered and discussed by their elected Congressmen and Senators until those are officially passed and executed and the people have literally no choice but to obey them or abide by them. Hence, there is always a possibility that the public interests and will are often suppressed, modified, and convoluted and personal agendas of the elected representatives or officials might be prioritized in the political governance and decision-making process. It has been asserted that direct democracies are often allegedly less efficient in a considerably large country like the United States or India which consists of significantly large number of states, counties, districts, sub-districts, and population size. Therefore, collecting public votes and opinions through legislative referendums on ever aspect of political governance from every individual citizen from all corners of the country seems practically irrational and problematic. Considering such practical issues and constraints, representative democratic governance seems to be relatively more justifiable under these circumstances.

3)A public good is a type of good available for all the people of the society to use. The government of the country provides these goods. Using public goods is either free or less costly than using private goods. Public goods are produced for social welfare. Public goods have two main characteristics: they are non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The bus is not a public good because it does not have the basic characteristics of public goods. It is not non-rivalry and non-excludability. This means that a ticket bought by a person does stop another person from buying the same ticket (non-rivalry), and if a person does not pay for the ticket, he cannot travel on the bus (non-excludability). So, bus violates the characteristics of public good and hence, it cannot be included in the list of public goods,
Similarly, ATM is also not a public good because it does not satisfy the characteristics of a public good.
Public parks, on the other hand, are public goods because they are non-rivalry and non-excludability. This means that one person using Public Park will not affect the rights of another person using the same public parks (non-rivalry). It is not mandatory for all the people to pay for using public parks (non-excludability).
The government may have issue guidelines to close all public parks because people may have been damaging the trees and flowers in the parks; maintenance of the park is costly or any other reason thereof. The government cannot close the use of buses because it is mandatory for the people who use it to travel on a daily basis. Buses are basic necessities for people to travel, and hence, the government cannot close access to public buses.

4)

As every one of the 50 states begin to reopen their economies, government authorities face inquiries concerning their reaction to the Covid pandemic. While a greater part of talk centers around the significant health outcomes coming about because of variety in state limitations, clashing arrangements the nation over feature some key established issues that stay uncertain as we push ahead in this emergency.

- The COVID-19 pandemic carried expanding consideration regarding our federalist type of government. The conventional story of federalism perceives that the national government can make strategy in certain zones, while the states maintain whatever authority is needed to direct in different regions. Notwithstanding, as the pandemic has featured, things are not generally that obvious. The sacred limits among state and federal authority are progressively hard to discover. Because of political choices by both state and federal chosen authorities, the present American government appears to be unique than initially pondered by the country's organizers.

- Here are four advancements in our federal arrangement of government enlightened by COVID-19.

o Governors' chief forces have extended : One of the Anti-Federalist investigates of the Constitution was that the administration was a hidden government that, as a team with the Senate, would administer the nation domineeringly. The Federalists countered that, joined with division of forces, the circulation of power between the state and national governments would forestall leader power snatches. In any case, after some time, the presidential branch at each degree of government has developed in size and authority. National chief organizations currently make strategies that control Americans' financial, social, and political exercises, For instance, while the Trump organization took its first activities because of the pandemic toward the beginning of February, Congress didn't pass the CARES Act until late March. At the state level, just 29 state assemblies have passed enactment identifying with the Covid, while each state lead representative has made leader move.

o National politicians seek governors for partisan successes :Indeed, even with an extended presidential branch, the national government basically doesn't have the assets to do all that it needs. Accordingly, it progressively goes to the states to do significant governmental assignments. Such dependence further creates and fortifies presidential branch entertainers at the state level. This is especially evident in healthcare, where lines among state and federal strategy are very obscured.

o A huge number of locales manage elections : Obviously, elections give residents an approach to remark on the arrangements that the ideological groups embrace. Nonetheless, elections speak to an exemplary case of how federalism presents the country with new difficulties. The decentralized cycle gave by the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the guideline and organization of elections happen at the state level.

o Responsibility for reacting to COVID-19 is muddled: Regardless of whether all residents have equivalent chance to cast a ballot under practically identical constituent guidelines, one could address whom residents should consider responsible for COVID-19 approach. At the point when the states and national government act in a similar strategy space, citizens will most likely be unable to recognize whom to accuse when things go inadequately and to remunerate when things work out in a good way. This responsibility issue possibly enhances when appointed managers are tossed in with the general mish-mash.