Edexcel A2 Government and Politics May/June 2012

Scroll to see replies

Reply 580

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by Neelambri

how much do people usually write for a 45 marker?like 3 pages?

3-4 pages depending on topic

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 581

konradweb

Hi there, Jack. Yes I have this exam tomorrow, I must say there are a number of topics I wouldn't mind coming up, they are;

-Presidential / Vice- Presidential Elections
-Congressional Elections
-Reasons For Joining A Pressure Group
-Methods Used By Pressure Groups To Seek To Influence U.S Government
-Civil Rights In The USA
-Affirmative Action

I'm quite weak for knowledge on influence from left and right within political parties, so I'm praying that does not come up.
Also as I'm sure you have done yourself, I looked at past papers and some of the 45 markers are very generic and quite difficult to formulate judgement/ arguements on over 45 marks.

Anyway, Good Luck tomorrow.

Reply 582

Chazzybish

Original post by FullMetalX

The only thing I'm struggling with right now is the whole controversy behind the Coalitions restructuring of the NHS. Why is it seen as introducing more privatisation?

When I did this in January I found these two pages very helpful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13749880 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12177084

Basically, the main thing more left-wing people believe is that, by increasing the cap from 3% to 49% of much care can be provided to private clients in NHS hospitals, the NHS is being slowly privatised.

Just found this article too, might be useful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/19/health-bill-private-patients

Reply 583

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by konradweb

Yeah, I just try and put in the Plurist vs elitist views for pressure groups or conservative vs liberal as well for all topics

Good luck to you too!

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 584

FullMetalX

Original post by Chazzybish

Thank you, very useful!

Reply 585

Tommyy

I took Unit 3C in January.
Absolutely bombed out!

From my experience, these two are all about the analysis, and examples.

Hopefully Racial and Ethnic politics will come up as a 45!

Remember everyone:
Brown v. Board 1954
Rosa Parks 1955
Martin Luther King - Speech 1963, Assassination 1968,
Clarence Thomas - 2nd African-American Supreme Court justice
Barack Obama - first African-American President.

You'll definitely want to drop these bombshells in this question!

Just a thought!

Reply 586

Tommyy

What are some recent changes to campaign finance regulations?

Reply 587

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by Tommyy

What are some recent changes to campaign finance regulations?

McCain-feingold Act 2002
Restricted soft money
Raised individual contribution limit to $ 2,300 (increase w/ inflation in each odd numbered year)
Not allowed to fundraise on federal property
Stand by your Ad provision
Can't advertise a fed candidate 60 days within a election or 30 of a primary with union and corporate money

And the Federal election campaign Act 1974

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 588

Tommyy

Original post by waterstone555

Hi everyone I am taking the Unit 3C Representative processes in the USA paper for Edexcel on Monday 11th June and myself and friends have been struggling to write 45 Mark answers to the essay style questions and we were wondering whether someone could give tips or provide essays they have written to past paper questions so we could work out how to answer them please?
We are sort of okay planning them and getting the points I.e the knowledge marks but the analysis and comparative marks are harder to get and any help which can be given in the form of tips or actual essays would be extreme helpful :smile:

Good luck to everyone doing this paper on Monday
Thanks in advance for the help :smile:

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is a bit late, but feel free to read this over.

Perhaps we could share ideas?

Cheers.

‘Racial equality in the USA remains a distant dream’. Discuss.

In previous decades, there have been many notable events that have led to the widening of the debate on racial equality within US Society, with some commentators claiming that it is a distant dream, and others merely claiming that in essence America is moving towards an equal society. In this essay I will explore both sides of this debate, and analyse to what extent the USA is an equal society.

Firstly, there are those, predominantly on the left of the political spectrum, who would argue that racial equality in the USA does indeed remain a distant dream. Firstly, the USA is a nation built on racist foundations, dating back to the framers of the constitution in 1787. Ethnic minorities didn’t enjoy the right to vote until Amendment 16 was passed in 1870, and slavery was deemed appropriate right up until the end of the Civil war in 1865, and many believe that this racist attitude still continues in politics and society up to the present day. Therefore they would argue that the only way to redress the inequality balance in society is through collective responsibility, and thereby the introduction of schemes such as affirmative Action-based programmes. There is a wealth of information to support the claim that racial equality is a distant dream, with a notable example being that of the arrest of Civil Rights Activist Rosa Parks in 1955. Surely, racial equality remains still a distant dream if only 50 years ago there was still widespread segregation in all sections of society. Furthermore to this point, the landmark Supreme Court case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 shows how there was still racial inequality in terms of public schooling, too. Furthermore, after this landmark supreme case, the fact that the de-segregation ruling was not followed in Arkansas, and the fact that President Eisenhower had sent in federal troops in order to address the problem shows a public feeling of discrimination, even in the 20th Century, once again hinting that racial equality is still just a distant dream. Another key example of how there was still widespread discrimination until the 1970s was the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, which debatably shows a public discontentment with the advancement of African-Americans, once again hinting at the idea that racial equality in the USA remains a distant dream. Many on the left would say that it remains a distant dream if the government does not do more to help minorities in society. They believe that giving equality of opportunity does not necessarily entail an equality of results in society. They believe that the only way of ensuring equality of results is to implement affirmative action programmes and quotas, which ensure this to be the case.

However, especially on the right of the political Spectrum of the USA, many would argue that racial equality is not a distant dream, and that the US is already working towards it, and in some ways, destroying what should be a natural process of equality formation in the USA. Firstly, many Republicans would argue that affirmative action goes completely against the idea of racial equality, in that it creates a society based on prejudice and racism, thus working away from racial equality. Abigail Thernstrom’s famous book ‘No excuses’ points out a cultural problem within the minority races, which must be seen to in order to achieve racial equality. The book points out that in many cases it is in fact minority group’s own culture that puts them at such a disadvantage in society, and that rather than implement affirmative action programmes in order to benefit them, they need to change their own style of life to compete in the ‘land of opportunity’. Many feel that affirmative action programmes merely create a cultural dependency, and rather any programmes should be class-based rather than group based, in order to help those who are in most need of support. Furthermore to this, there are key examples of minorities who have achieved great things and are seen as equals in society, for example ex-Senator and now President Barack Obama, who is a prime example of the fact that racial equality is being achieved in the USA. Also, the fact that Clarence Thomas is the second African-American justice to the Supreme Court shows that representation of minorities is growing, showing a greater equality in society. This is also shown in the Congress of the USA, in where in 1984 there were just 21 African-Americans in Congress – all in the House of Representatives. However, in 2010, there were a huge 42 African-American representatives, showing a positive step in the USA towards racial equality. Furthermore, such notable African Americans as Oprah Winfrey have shown that racial equality is not a general issue in the USA, and that anyone can succeed in America, regardless of their background.

Perhaps another strand of opinion on this issue points towards the fact that minorities are growing in population and in prominence in the USA, which points towards a more racially equal society. The extent of this is shown through the 2010 American census, which showed that African Americans now make up a huge 12.3% of the population, and the Hispanic population now makes up 16.3% of the population. Furthermore to this, such groups as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are rising in numbers. The NAACP is currently estimated to have 300,000 members, and an annual budget of over $27,000,000. The increased prominence of such groups was shown in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education, in where the NAACP were the driving force behind the result. Therefore, it could be argued that as the minority population rises in the USA, so too does the prominence of such groups, and in turn the equality of such minority groups within the society of the US.

To conclude, there are two distinct strands of opinion on the topic of the USA striving towards racial equality. There are those, mostly on the left, who would argue that the USA would not move towards a racially equal society unless the government implements more measures to help out the minorities of the USA. In opposition to this, there are those, mostly on the right of the political spectrum, who would argue that the USA is a country in which anyone can succeed and fail, regardless of race and background, so therefore given the examples of those who have achieved great things in society, the USA is indeed moving towards being a racially equal society.

Reply 589

Hekmatking

Hello,

this is my first time sitting this paper.

does any of you know what question came up in unit 3C US politics.

Please Hurry, my exam is tomorrow.

thank you

Reply 590

Hekmatking

sorry i didn't right the year

January 2012

Reply 591

student1234567891

no one fancies EC reform coming up as a 45 marker then for elections?

Reply 592

student1234567891

campaign finance already came up in june 2010: "to what extent did the 2008 presidential election prove that campaign finance regulations are effective?"

why would it come up again?

Reply 593

jamie_jca

Original post by Jack22031994

Citizens United v FEC is a must on any campaign finance question

Reply 594

topiwopi

anyone got any predicitons of what will come up?

Reply 595

beefheartrules

Original post by student1234567891

campaign finance already came up in june 2010: "to what extent did the 2008 presidential election prove that campaign finance regulations are effective?"

why would it come up again?

THis is what my teacher said. It came up in 2010 based on the 2008 election which was over and done with: the 2012 primates aren't even over yet. I guess it being the first election to be affected by citizens united might have bearing. I've revised it anyway but not 100% convinced it will come up....

Reply 596

student1234567891

Original post by beefheartrules

thank you!

EC reform, no one is talking about it :P but for me it looks so likely! and two party system!

Reply 597

alvinator

Original post by waterstone555

Good luck to everyone doing this paper on Monday
Thanks in advance for the help :smile:

Here is how u write a real 45 marker:

The idea of Party Decline is a theory from Dennis Broder in 1972 that the importance, functions and the membership of a party has been in decline. According to Broder, the “Party Loyalties have been … eroded” which suggests that maybe there is a decline in the parties (however this can be conteracted in that the number of independents have fallen drastically in comparison with 1992 in that they were 32% of the electorate but in 2008, they made up 29% which is evidence to suggest that the decline in the Parties is false). Also, the theories of Party decline have seemed to be true in that within the 1990s, Bill Clinton used many policies that were associated with the Reform Party (under Ross Perot) as well as the Republicans in that it was seen that there should be deficit reduction (which is a pro-Conservative viewpoint in that they would see that unnecessary government spending is not good for the economy – which in turn led to a surplus when George W Bush assumed Presidency in 2000). This has led to many political scientists such as Mark Shields (who wrote in the Washington Post in 1997 that there are “two Republican Parties” which are only split on the issue of “abortion” suggesting that the parties are either similar or there has been some bipartisanship – where the two major parties seem to agree on policy rather than uniting within their part y and aiming to quash the opposing party) suggesting that there is a “party decline”.
On one hand the power of the party seems to have declined in that party candidates seem to have a great importance than the actual party. This is perhaps true in the sense that people tend to vote for the candidate and fund them rather than the actual party. This seems logical considering that Parties generally have a wide spectrum of ideologies, so in the Democrats there are Blue dogs such as Tim Holden (who happened to be defeated in the Pennsylvannia district to which he was an incumbent in 2012) to moderates such as House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California. This can be show in the Republican party there are moderates such as Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to social Conservatives such as the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum. So the idea of a clear Republican voter and a clear Democrat vote depends in that if a person is a conservative, they could vote for a conservative President (who can be a Democrat) and a conservative Representative regardless of which party they belong to (so a person from Georgia in 1996 could have voted for Newt Gingrich and Ross Perot of the Independent National third party the Reform Party). This therefore means that the candidate who runs is generally important to how people vote in regards to their ideology.
However figures in 2008 show that 9% of those who voted, voted for a Democrat President (Obama) and a Republican Congressman/Senator compared to the 10% who voted for a Republican President (Candidate Senator John McCain of Arizona) and a Democrat Congressman/Senator. This compared to 1980 where 8% voted for a Democrat President (incumbent Jimmy Carter) and a Republican Congressman/Senator and 20% voted for a Republican President (Governor Ronald Reagan of California) and a Democrat Congressman/Senator. This is evidence to suggest that in recent years the era of party decline has gone in that in 2008, less people were involved in split ticket voting (voting for different candidates from different parties in various elections – so voting for a Republican President, a Democrat Senator and a New York conservative Representative) than in 1980 which suggests that party renewal(where the party is important for fundraising, elections, organization and partisanship within Congress) has occurred more than party decline..
Party Renewal seems to have shown a revival in recent years especially within Partisanship (where members of a party group together despite conflicting ideological interests – most of the time – and go out against the opposing party so Democrats uniting against Republicans). This seems to have been true since the 1990s in that for the impeachment trial (from 1998 – 1999), no Democrat congressmen or Democrat Senators voted in the impeachment case of Bill Clinton (after the emergence of the Monica Lewinsky affair) in comparison to the Republicans who mostly voted for the impeachment case (to which if won, Clinton would have to go before the Senate). This in turn meant that the Republicans did not gain a two thirds majority to have the impeachment case, thus suggesting that party renewal has been the case. This can be further shown in 2009 in that Obama lacked any bipartisan support in his Affordable Care Bill (known colloquially as Obamacare) in that the bill was passed in the House with a majority of 5 (220 – 215) with 176 Republicans (all except for the first Vietnamese Republican who was a moderate) with a further 39 Democrats against it including the 24 Blue Dog Coalition members (who were against the use of $1.1 trillion being used in aiding health insurance for over 10 years due to the deficit America had of $13 trillion) and 22 Southern Democrats (who are traditionally conservative despite being in a liberal Party – ie the Democrats). Ultimately the bill was passed in March 2010 due to amendments (so including the Stupak amendment which ultimately inhibited the federal government from funding abortions – which was approved by 12 conservative Democrats – and the amendment that there should be a reduction on the number of people who can gain the health insurance from 47 million to 32 million). Thus the Liberals at the time were against many of the amendments (so for the Stupak amendment, many were against the fact that federal funds could not fund abortions especially due to the fact that they are generally pro-choice depending on the situation). The conservatives were generally pleased in that although it meant that 32 million people gained health insurance (which was too far for many conservatives), they managed to make sure that abortions were not funded and less people gained “Obamacare”. Thus it seems that in terms of partisanship, it seems to have grown hence the idea of “party decline” can be seen as outdated.
However it can be seen that bipartisanship has occurred in the modern era. So under George W Bush, there was support of many policies such as the invasion of Iraq (which gained 75% of support from the Democrats in the Senate and 80% support in the House from the Democrats) and the support of the Patriot Act (anti-terrorist legislation done at the time of the need to allow the invasion in Iraq – the act itself gaining most of the support of the Democrats in Congress). Liberals (and many more critics) would see the reason why it occurred was due to the anti-terrorist sentiment after one of the most dangerous threats to American security (the 9/11 terrorist attacks) which mobilized popular support (Bush’s approval ratings soared past 60%) and Congressional support. So liberals would argue that the belief that there was bipartisanship (where the two parties united) as mainly false in that the Congress and the people generally support the president (no matter what party he was in) in terms of national crisis (which can be shown in 1964 where the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed in Congress with 88 – 2 in the Senate and 466 – 0 in Congress). Thus the idea of bipartisanship can be seen to be true however Liberals and ultimately other critics would argue that bipartisanship has mainly occurred in times of crisis of the nation and not throughout (most of the Democrats were against the tax cuts of Bush in that he wanted to use $1.25 million in 2003, suggesting that Liberals still support their traditional beliefs in terms of supporting the old New Deal coalition (from Franklin Delano Roosevelt) idea that there should be help for the poorest in society rather than using the modern Republican viewpoint that there should be support for the richest in society to maintain investment).
In terms of money, it can be seen that there has been a decline of party importance. In the early 1970s, the parties could fund their candidates however after the Federal Election Campaign Acts (from 1974 – which have been supported by liberals and not conservatives who see that the laws breach the first Ammendment which allows “freedom of speech”), the importance of parties diminished. Although the party has been important for rallying support for a candidate within the party (explaining Bill Clinton’s win in Georgia in 1992), the party importance has diminished in that parties look towards match funds or simply PACs. PACs seem to be more important for the candidates in that they gain money from their members and fund the candidates (so in 2010, the National Realtors Association earned the most money as a PAC and their recepients were 45% Republican and 55% Democrat) especially since the candidates have a single set of views in comparison to a party which has a wide spectrum of views, which makes the PACs seem more important to the Parties. The lack of need for the party has made its importance low in that they can not properly aid the candidate running for presidency and so the candidates have to look at PACs who provide money to their campaigns (so as of 24th May 2012, NARAL – the pro-choice PAC - have given $11,938 to Obama’s campaign).
However it can be argued that the importance of the party has been there in terms of money and still can be important. So before the McCain – Feingold Act of 2002 (the fact that it is a bipartisan act adds to the fact that the party system is in decline with a moderate Republican in McCain and a liberal Democrat in Russell Feingold), the parties indirectly supported their candidates by funding their campaigns through get out the vote campaigns and other “party building” activities (which in fact exploited the system in that they could aid their candidates whilst at the same time not actually funding their candidates with soft money). In fact for Independents, the importance of the party is high in terms of wanting to get money to fund Ballot Access Petitions for example. Due to the fact that independent parties lack much money (as no-one wants to fund a candidate who they know will lose especially if the candidate is from a third party and has no chance of winning due to the two party system), the independent candidates have limited outlets to spend their money (so they can not fund advertisement in the way that candidates such as Obama can who spent millions on a two minute video outlining his economic strategy in 2008) so the importance of the party is high. So for an independent, they can only gain “matching funds” if they gain 5% in the previous election and for a third party this can be difficult. So the importance of previous candidates can be important if a third party candidate wants to gain funding. So Ross Perot gaining 19% of the popular in 1992 allowed him to gain “matching funds” (which would bypass the actual importance of the party however with the independents, the importance of a good result in a previous election is high) in 1996 and by gaining 9% of the vote in 1996, it allowed the subsequent candidate who ran in 2000, to gain some matching funds (hence highlighting the high importance of parties).
It can be seen that the theory of Party decline has been somewhat exaggerated in that when the theory was produced, events such as the Fraser – McGovern Reforms meant that primaries were more democratic and so the importance of the “party bosses” (mayors and other people in party) had diminished. However as the quote from Mark Twain which says “reports of my death have been exaggerated”, it can be reflected in the system of the party. So the Democrat party suffered three decades of being the weaker party from 1968, due to their old liberal style (however there was an anomaly in that Jimmy Carter was an old liberal yet he won in 1976) and only gained a resurgence with the New Democrat philosophy which was more centrist than the old liberal belief (this was beneficial in Clinton becoming elected in 1992). As well as this the “death” of the Republican party was seen as temporary in that after the Watergate scandal of 1973, the Republicans resurged with the arrival of Ronald Reagan (who famously won Democrat safe states such as Masechussetts with 3,000 votes out of 2 and a half million) suggesting that the theory of party decline is simply false. As well as the fact that the idea has been exaggerated it can be seen that in recent years, the party as a whole has united to gain a national campaign uniting everyone within the party. The 1994 Republican revolution under Representative Newt Gingrich managed to unite the party with the “Contract with America” (a ten point policy programme which relied on firstly gaining control of the Congress which it did and then within the first 100 days gaining vote support on policies such as anti-crime legislation and congressional term reform) and this managed to unite the party voters which resulted in winning 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate thus making Congress Republican. This was further shown in 2006, when the campaign of “Six for 06” aimed to make Congress Democrat which was the first time in 12 years. Thus in actual fact it seems that the idea of party decline is false and in actual fact party renewal has seemed to be prominent within the party system.
However due to the decentralized nature of America (having a federal system where the power is shared with the federal government and the states), this has precipitated to the parties in that they are leaderless and so the party system can actually be drastically different depending on the area. There is an argument to suggest that there is a 50 party system in that the Democrats and the Republicans are split into various different parties in different states. So the liberal side of the Democratic party in Masechussetts (in the north east liberal side of America) is drastically different to the Democratic Party in Georgia (which contains many Southern Democrats who are conservative in their beliefs). The decentralized system of American parties can be argued to explain a reason why there is a “party decline”. So famously in 2010, the Republican National Committee wanted to have Mike Castle (a moderate Republican) win the Senate seat of Delaware however the Republican Party wanted to have Christine O’Donnell (a conservative Tea Party candidate) win. In the end Christine O’Donnell won showing how the states can have more power than the National Committee. However this can be argued against in that the Democratic National Committee banned the Florida Democratic Party from holding its Primary on the 29th January and so the Florida Democratic party were weak to argue against it (however eventually the Florida Democratic party were later allowed to have their primary contest whilst at the same time giving the delegates half a vote each in the National Convention). Thus it seems that due to a lack of cohesiveness, it can be seen that there is party decline with the states conducting the activities and being independent from the National Committees.
In conclusion, I feel that the theory of party decline is generally out of date. Although the parties lack functions such as choosing the president (in that the people have more power in deciding who the President) or the vice president at the National Conventions (which is left to the presidential candidate), I feel the party still has importance in elections. For example, had it not been for Charles Shumpter (then Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) then the Democrats would not have made a net gain of 8 seats from 51 in the Senate to 59 (which ultimately led to a rise in funds in 2010 which gave the DCCC $63 million to spend) in 2008. As well as this, in recent years partisanship (where most to all members of a party unite against an opposing party) has dominated compared to bipartisanship which can be shown with Clinton saying that “the era of big government is over” (suggesting that the parties have remained separate rather than together). Of course there can be some bipartisanship due to the large ideological spectrums within parties however it can be argued that because of where a person lives (there can be a Southern Democrat who is Conservative such as Blanche Lincoln of Arizona and a North East Rockefeller Republican such as Olympia Snowe) and the dominance of the 2 party system, the idea of having an ideological party seems to be the norm. As well as this, to say there is party decline can not be fully supported in that Independents generally gain a low amount of votes (Ralph Nader of the Green Party gaining 0.32% of the popular vote in 2008 and Ross Perot despite gaining 19% of the vote in 1992 did not gain a single Electorate College vote due to the Single Memember Simple Pluarlity system) and if they gained a high percentage of votes, then it could be argued that there was party decline. However this does not happen and independents have rarely gained over 5% of the popular vote or gained any electoral college votes (the last independent to gain any was George Wallace in 1968 who gained 46 votes). As well as this events such as the impeachment saga of 1998-99 and the Healthcare Reforms have suggested that there is partisanship and not bipartisanship. Therefore I feel that party decline is outdated and I think it rarely happens in small cases (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 being one of the most recent examples of bipartisanship in America).

Reply 598

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by beefheartrules

What's citizens united?

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 599

chandlerbong

Original post by Jack22031994

Anyone got it tomorrow and what do you want to come up?

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

hey does anyone remember what pressure group question came up in Jan?
and yes, me - wish I tried harder first time round -.-
I hope either
- electoral college
- pluralist v elitist
- Access points
- congressional/midterms
- reforms of primaries etc.

not a fan of political parties, and my teacher didn't teach us the fourth topic

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Edexcel A-Level Economics Paper 1 - Unofficial Mark Scheme - 18 May 2023

Students react after A-level Economics Paper 2 on 22 May 2023

Students react after A-level Maths Paper 3 on 20 June

Students react to A-level Chemistry Paper 2 on 19 June 2023

Edexcel A2 Government and Politics May/June 2012

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you