LAW 201 Midterm Answers

.pdf

School

Modesto Junior College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Political Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

6

Uploaded by BaronExploration5599

Report
1. In class, we defined polarization in a variety of ways. Based on your understanding of the class materials, answer the following questions: a. What is polarization? Support your answer with examples of a time period with high polarization and a time period with low polarization. b. b. Some would say that the United States is more polarized now than ever before. Is this true? Why or why not? c. c. How has polarization impacted the ways in which people have sorted themselves amongst political parties over time? d. d. In your opinion, how has polarization impacted how voters prioritize the various characteristics that make up the “IT” factor? Provide examples from the readings, class slides, class presentations, and/or class videos to support your answer. Answer: Polarization refers to the division or separation of people into opposing groups or factions, typically characterized by strong and often partisan attitudes. It can occur in various aspects of society, such as politics, religion, or social issues. This division can lead to increased tension and conflict between individuals or groups with differing beliefs or ideologies. In politics, specifically, polarization plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions. Political polarization in the US has significantly shifted over time. There have been periods of both low and high polarization in American politics. For instance, a time period with low polarization in U.S. politics was post-World War II. During this time, there was a greater sense of unity and bipartisanship as both major political parties worked together to rebuild the nation and promote economic growth. However, in recent decades, political polarization has been on the rise, with increasing ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. It has resulted in a lack of compromise and cooperation between political parties, making it difficult to address pressing issues and find common ground. For instance, it has led to gridlock and hindered progress on important policy issues such as healthcare reform and climate change. Additionally, polarization has also led to the rise of extreme ideologies and movements, further exacerbating societal divisions, and undermining social cohesion. I believe that it is true that the United States is more polarized now than ever before. This polarization is evident in the increasing ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, which has resulted in a lack of bipartisan consensus on crucial matters. Moreover, the influence of social media and echo chambers has contributed to the deepening of these divisions, as individuals are often drawn only to information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs. Moreover, extreme polarization is obvious in the growing resentment and conflict between political factions, leading to a breakdown in civil discourse and an unwillingness to find common ground. This has not only obstructed effective governance but also fueled a sense of distrust and alienation among the American population. Additionally, the polarization has seeped into various aspects of society, including media outlets, where biased reporting further exacerbates the divide and perpetuates a cycle of division. Furthermore, polarization has impacted how voters prioritize the various characteristics that make up the "IT" factor. In an increasingly polarized political climate, voters are often more inclined to prioritize party affiliation and ideological alignment over the personal qualities and policy proposals of candidates. This shift in focus has led
to a decline in the importance placed on qualities such as integrity, experience, and leadership skills. Thus, rather than a candidate's overall qualifications or potential for effective governance, the "IT" factor is now primarily based on how well the candidate matches the voter's personal political views. (Electing A President Presentation) Alignment with the voter's political beliefs is deemed more important than "IT" factors like age, political experience, and risk-taking propensity. This shift has also given rise to a more polarized political landscape, as voters are more likely to support candidates who strongly advocate for their own ideologies rather than seek out candidates who may possess a broader range of skills and perspectives. Consequently, the emphasis on "IT" factors has contributed to a decrease in the diversity of ideas and potential solutions within the political sphere. 2. Answer the following questions about the political party primary process: a. Compare and contrast the Democratic Party’s pre -1972 primary system and today’s primary system. How did the relevant commissions change their nomination process? b. Discuss the ways in which the post-1972 political primary process led to the selection of “non - traditional” candidates (i.e., candidates unlikely to be favored by party bosses). Using examples of non-traditional candidates from the readings, class slides, class presentations, and/or class videos, critique whether the post-1972 changes to the primary system have been a success or a failure. c. Select either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and answer the following questions: i. What are some of the current issues in your selected party’s nomination process? How should the party remedy these issues? ii. Iowa and New Hampshire have historically been the first two states on the primary voting calendar. Should these states keep their advantage, or should your selected party change the order? Or should your selected party simply have all states vote on the same day? State your position and explain your reasoning. Answer: In the pre-1972 primary system, local party officials, precinct leaders, ward leaders, and others would take part in a sequence of meetings that concluded in a state convention to select the presidential candidates. The delegates to the nominating convention would then be chosen by party leaders. In contrast, today's primary system is more democratic and inclusive, allowing registered party members and sometimes even independent voters to directly participate in selecting the presidential candidates. The McGovern-Fraser Commission's 1972 reforms, which intended to improve transparency and the involvement of the general public in the nomination process, had a major impact on this change. These reforms introduced binding primaries and caucuses, where voters have a direct say in choosing delegates who will represent them at the national convention. The post-1972 political primary process introduced reforms such as the increased use of primaries and caucuses, which aimed to give more power to the voters in selecting
party nominees. These changes were intended to diminish the influence of party bosses and allow for a more democratic selection process. (Nomination Process and Campaign Presentation) However, while these reforms have allowed for the rise of non-traditional candidates like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, they have also raised concerns about the influence of money in politics and the potential for populist candidates without sufficient experience. In particular, the Hunt Commission increased the involvement of elected and party officials in the nomination process, especially after Jimmy Carter's unsuccessful reelection campaign in 1980. The commission mandated 14.4% of delegates to be reserved for elected and party officials, naming these superdelegates, who were uncommitted to any single candidate. (Primary Reform Presentation) Some other ways this change has impacted the political landscape include increased voter engagement and participation, as caucuses often require more active involvement from voters compared to traditional primary elections. Additionally, the shift towards caucuses has also led to a greater emphasis on grassroots organizing and mobilization, as candidates need to build strong support networks within local communities to succeed in these types of contests. The post-1972 changes to the primary system have been a success in increasing the diversity of candidates and promoting a more inclusive political process. By allowing a wider range of voices to be heard, caucuses have provided opportunities for underrepresented groups to have a greater influence on shaping the political agenda. As for the Republican Party, some of the current issues in the party's nomination process are the supremacy of well-funded candidates and the influence of special interest groups. These factors can limit the representation of diverse voices within the party and hinder the ability of grassroots candidates to gain traction. Additionally, the winner-take- all approach in some states can discourage candidates who may not have widespread support but still have valuable perspectives to contribute. (Electoral College Presentation) Furthermore, Iowa and New Hampshire have historically been the first two states on the primary voting calendar. In my opinion, it is time for a change in the primary voting calendar. While Iowa and New Hampshire have held their advantage for years, it is crucial to ensure a fair and inclusive process that truly represents the diverse perspectives of our nation. By allowing all states to vote on the same day, we can eliminate the undue influence that these two states hold and give every candidate an equal opportunity to gain support nationwide. (Nomination Process and Campaign Presentation) The current system disproportionately favors candidates who perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, often leaving those with public support and influence from other states at a disadvantage. This not only undermines the democratic principles of our nation but also hinders the ability of candidates to connect with voters across the country and address their unique concerns. A more equitable and inclusive process would allow for a broader range of voices to be heard, ensuring that the presidential nominee truly reflects the will of the American people.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
3. You are an intern for a state senator in Wisconsin, a swing state. One of her colleagues has introduced legislation proposing that Wisconsin follow the model of Nebraska and Maine with respect to the Electoral College. Those states allocate their electoral votes based on the winner of the popular vote for each congressional district and then award two electors based on the statewide popular vote. Write a memo for your senator to help her evaluate this proposal by answering the following: a. What is the Electoral College, and how does it work? What are the pros and cons of the current system? b. How would this proposal potentially affect Wisconsin and other swing states? c. What is an example of another possible alternative proposal to reform the electoral college, aside from a complete change to a popular vote? What would be the pros and cons of this proposal? Would this alternative raise constitutional concerns? Answer: The electoral college is a group of individuals from each state and the District of Columbia chosen to formally select the president and vice president. A presidential elector casts a vote, while a slate of electors is chosen based on the state popular vote on election day. (Electoral College Presentation) Some pros and cons of this current system are that it ensures that smaller states have a voice in the election process and prevents a few densely populated states from dominating the outcome. Additionally, it provides a clear winner by requiring a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes. However, critics argue that it can lead to the winner of the popular vote losing the election, as seen in some past instances. (Electoral College Presentation) Another con is that it can discourage voter turnout in states where one party consistently dominates, as voters may feel their vote doesn't matter. This proposal could potentially have a significant impact on Wisconsin and other swing states. Since swing states often play a crucial role in determining the outcome of presidential elections, candidates tend to focus their campaigns and policies on these states to secure their electoral votes. If the proposal eliminates or reduces the influence of swing states, it could lead to a shift in campaign strategies, with candidates prioritizing other regions or demographics instead. This may result in swing states losing some of their political leverage and potentially affecting their overall significance in national elections. One possible alternative proposal to reform the electoral college is the proportional allocation of electors. Under this system, instead of the winner-takes-all approach currently used by most states, electors would be allocated proportionally based on the popular vote in each state. This means that candidates would receive electoral votes in proportion to their share of the popular vote. Moreover, this alternative proposal would ensure that every vote counts and would potentially lead to a more accurate representation of the will of the people. However, implementing this system may raise concerns about how to determine the exact proportionality and could potentially lead to increased complexity in the electoral process. Additionally, smaller states may feel that their voices are diminished under this system, as candidates may focus more on winning
larger states with higher populations. In terms of constitutional concerns, this approach may raise questions about the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as it could potentially result in unequal representation for certain groups or regions. Furthermore, implementing a proportional voting system would require significant changes to existing electoral laws and procedures, which could face resistance and challenges from political parties and interest groups. 4. How has the federal government influenced participation in our system of voting and elections? In answering this question, consider each of the following: a. Describe any U.S. Supreme Court cases that affected the ability of voters to participate in our political system and/or affected how elections are run. Why do you think this case and/or these cases had such a huge impact on our political system? b. Describe any legislation from Congress that affected the ability of voters to participate in our political system and/or affected how elections are run. Why do you think this law and/or these laws had such a huge impact on our political system? c. Describe a time in which the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress was at odds over protecting the right to vote. What does this episode teach us about which branch of government is best situated to protect voting rights in the U.S.? Answer: The federal government has played a significant role in shaping and influencing participation in our system of voting and elections. One of the keyways it has done so is through the passage and enforcement of legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to protect and ensure equal access to voting for all citizens. Additionally, the federal government has provided funding and resources to support voter registration efforts, election administration, and initiatives aimed at increasing voter turnout. One U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly influenced participation in our system of voting and elections is the landmark decision of Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. (Class 4 Presentation) This case struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting laws. The Court argued that this provision was no longer necessary as racial discrimination had significantly decreased over time. This case has had a significant impact on our political system, as it weakened the protections against voter suppression and allowed states to enact laws that disproportionately affect minority voters. It has led to an increase in voter ID requirements, the purging of voter rolls, and gerrymandering, all of which can undermine the fairness and integrity of our elections. Additionally, the Shelby County decision has sparked debates about the need for Congress to update and strengthen the Voting Rights Act to ensure equal access to the ballot for all citizens. One example of legislation that significantly impacts the ability of voters to participate in our political system is the Help America Vote Act of 2002. (Class 4 Presentation) This law was enacted in response to the controversial 2000 presidential election and aimed to modernize voting systems, enhance voter registration processes,
and establish minimum standards for election administration. The legislation had a profound impact on our political system because it allocated substantial federal funding to states for the implementation of these reforms, thereby improving the accuracy and accessibility of elections. Moreover, its impact extended beyond the immediate reforms it implemented. The Help America Vote Act also increased public awareness and engagement in the electoral process, as it emphasized the importance of every vote and encouraged citizens to actively participate in elections. Additionally, the law helped restore public trust in the election system by addressing some of the issues that had been raised during the 2000 election, such as outdated voting technology and voter registration discrepancies. One example of the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress being at odds over protecting the right to vote was during the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting laws. Congress amended this provision in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the framework used to determine which states were subject to federal approval was outdated and no longer necessary. This decision sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it weakened protections against voter discrimination, while supporters believed it was a necessary step towards ensuring states' rights and equality in voting regulations. (Class 4 Presentation) The ruling prompted calls for Congress to update the formula and reinstate stronger voting rights protections. Reflecting on this period, the legislative branch, specifically the United States Congress, is best positioned to safeguard voting rights in the U.S. With its power to create and amend laws, Congress has the ability to pass legislation that can strengthen voting rights and address any gaps left by the Supreme Court's ruling. Additionally, Congress can also conduct oversight of state voting regulations and take action against any discriminatory practices that may arise.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help