Politics Unit 3c and 4c paper June 2014
Scroll to see replies
2016 REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS PRIORITIES
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/05/republicans-and-democrats-approach-2016-with-different-priorities-wsjnbc-poll/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/05/republicans-and-democrats-approach-2016-with-different-priorities-wsjnbc-poll/
In addition to the economy, the four top issues that Democrats rate as high priorities are education, poverty and homelessness, healthcare policy, and Social Security and Medicare. At least three in four Democrats rate each of these issues as extremely or very important for the federal government to deal with.By contrast, at least three in four Republicans feel that terrorism, the military and national defense, and healthcare should be high-priority issues for the president and lawmakers this year. Education, at 70% extremely or very important, rounds out Republicans' top five priorities.Overall, Democrats and Republicans share seven of each other's top 10 priorities -- the economy, education, healthcare, terrorism, crime, Social Security and Medicare, and poverty. Democrats, but not Republicans, rank the distribution of wealth, the environment, and gun policy as top priorities. Republicans rank the military, taxes, immigration, and world affairs in their top 10.
(edited 8 years ago)
Partisans Most Divided on Prioritizing the Environment, Distribution of WealthDemocrats overall assign a significantly higher priority than do Republicans to nine of the 19 issues measured. This almost certainly reflects differences in underlying partisan views of how involved the government should be in fixing societal problems, with Democrats significantly more likely than Republicans to say government should be used to fix problems.Democrats are particularly more likely to assign a high priority to government efforts to address the environment, with a 39-percentage-point gap separating the parties.Democrats and Republicans also differ substantially in their rankings of the distribution of income and wealth (with Democrats 34 points higher) and poverty and homelessness (29 points). Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to prioritize education, gun policy, race relations, policies toward gays and lesbians, energy policy, and Social Security and Medicare.Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the president and Congress should prioritize the military and national defense (15 points), and taxes (13 points). Republicans also assign a higher priority to terrorism, government surveillance, and immigration.
Altogether, three issues can be considered bipartisan priorities -- receiving extremely/very important ratings from at least 70% of Democrats and Republicans. These include the economy, education, and healthcare policy.Four issues are Democratic priorities, which at least 70% of Democrats rate highly but are rated significantly lower (and lower than 70%) by Republicans: the distribution of income and wealth, poverty and homelessness, Social Security and Medicare, and the environment.Two issues are Republican priorities, rated above 70% by Republicans, but not as high by Democrats: the military and national defense, and terrorism.
Altogether, three issues can be considered bipartisan priorities -- receiving extremely/very important ratings from at least 70% of Democrats and Republicans. These include the economy, education, and healthcare policy.Four issues are Democratic priorities, which at least 70% of Democrats rate highly but are rated significantly lower (and lower than 70%) by Republicans: the distribution of income and wealth, poverty and homelessness, Social Security and Medicare, and the environment.Two issues are Republican priorities, rated above 70% by Republicans, but not as high by Democrats: the military and national defense, and terrorism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Democrats Have More Positive Image, But GOP Runs Even or Ahead on Key IssuesPublic Remains Split Over 'Who Should Take the Lead' on Problems
http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/26/democrats-have-more-positive-image-but-gop-runs-even-or-ahead-on-key-issues/
http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/26/democrats-have-more-positive-image-but-gop-runs-even-or-ahead-on-key-issues/
The Electoral College is an anachronistic monster of a lost era. It was built for a time and circumstance that no longer exists. For this reason, it is beyond doubt that it should be replaced by a national popular to ensure a President always wins the national vote and so that the privilege of swing states be removed.
The case to keep the Electoral college is a weak one. Firstly, there are those who argue that the Electoral College is an expression of the core ideals of federalism contained within the Constitution. It ensures representation for small states due to their three electoral votes that in fact inflate their importance. Indeed, if one does the math an electoral college vote in California is worth roughly 210,000 voters, whereas one in Wyoming is worth roughly 66,000 voters. This shows that the small states get a significant voice so that Presidential candidates must consider issues important to those states as well as major urban centres like those in California and New York. Opponents of national popular vote argue that changing to that system would shift all of the campaign focus to big urban city centres and therefore the Electoral College should be retained.
However, this argument is a weak one. At present the small states get no attention anyway because they are predominantly red states. Likewise, California and New York do not draw significant presidential attention because they are blue states. The point here is that the only states that get true presidential attention are those known as 'swing states', of which there were nine in 2012. The Electoral College serves to entrench the influence of nine key states, chief amongst which are the vital states of Ohio and Florida. The spending of Barack Obama in those states in 2012 just shows the tactical calculations that decide presidential elections. Provided Obama won those two states, he could not lose the election, hence the reason he ploughed his ground resources and money into those two states. The argument that the Electoral College ensures attention to small states is absurd, because at present only swing states get attention anyway. A national popular vote would mean that every vote counted, and thus Republican candidates would have significantly more incentive to campaign in New York and California just like Democrats could make a difference campaigning in Texas or Alabama. Clearly, this is a reason the national popular vote should replace the Electoral College.
Another argument often offered for keeping the Electoral College is that it has stood the test of time and delivers a clear result. Supporters will argue that to adopt the national popular vote would open the system to extensive litigation of every last vote causing endless recounts and confusing outcomes. Mitch McConnell recently made this argument in defence of the Electoral College when questioned on the NPV system being pursued by several states. His argument has a simplistic sense to it, because it is true that the Electoral College generally has returned a clear result with no litigation in the majority of circumstances.
However this argument on deeper inspection also has fundamental flaws. The Florida recount in 2000 where Bush won the Electoral College without winning the national vote demonstrates that the Electoral College is not as clear and easy as McConnell claims. An election in which the winner was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court shows that the argument backing a clear-cut winner is a weak one. The only reason the 2000 situation has not happened since then is because none of the elections since then have been particularly close. Even in 2004, where Bush won by a comfortable majority, had John Kerry won just 70,000 more votes in Ohio he would have won the election despite losing the national vote by 2 million. This wretched system for electing the president is far from clear and easy to understand, and is certainly not above litigation.
Finally, supporters of the Electoral College contend that if the system were changed to the national popular vote it would exponentially increase the cost of the election. This is because having to spend money equally in all 50 states because the votes suddenly all counted for the same weight would mean a massively widened net of money would be needed. It is true that the Electoral College currently means that campaigns can be concentrated in swing states, thus perhaps costing the candidates less overall. But is it really an advantage to say that Ohio and Florida get all the money and the rest of the states do not count?
A national popular vote would not necessarily mean more money, it would simply mean the available money would have to be spread more evenly. A situation where Ohio and Florida get a bit less money spent on them and perhaps the states of Oklahoma and Maryland get a bit more is simply an improvement to democracy. Further to this, the fact that every single vote counts would mean that candidates would have to listen to every state, and spend their resources accordingly. Election spending has spiralled out of control in the last ten years with the Electoral College in place, the Supreme Court has made sure of that. Changing to NPV might continue this trend, but with the last election in 2012 costing nearly $6 billion anyway, this is hardly a criticism that cannot also be aimed at the Electoral College.
Therefore, in summary it is clear that despite the criticisms aimed at NPV, it is a system which is superior in every way. It would not require a constitutional amendment, it would ensure fairer spread of resources and attention, and it would remove the insidious influence of swing states. Every counter that is offered can be conclusively blown away by NPV as has been shown above. For this reason, the Elecoral College should certainly be replaced by NPV.
The case to keep the Electoral college is a weak one. Firstly, there are those who argue that the Electoral College is an expression of the core ideals of federalism contained within the Constitution. It ensures representation for small states due to their three electoral votes that in fact inflate their importance. Indeed, if one does the math an electoral college vote in California is worth roughly 210,000 voters, whereas one in Wyoming is worth roughly 66,000 voters. This shows that the small states get a significant voice so that Presidential candidates must consider issues important to those states as well as major urban centres like those in California and New York. Opponents of national popular vote argue that changing to that system would shift all of the campaign focus to big urban city centres and therefore the Electoral College should be retained.
However, this argument is a weak one. At present the small states get no attention anyway because they are predominantly red states. Likewise, California and New York do not draw significant presidential attention because they are blue states. The point here is that the only states that get true presidential attention are those known as 'swing states', of which there were nine in 2012. The Electoral College serves to entrench the influence of nine key states, chief amongst which are the vital states of Ohio and Florida. The spending of Barack Obama in those states in 2012 just shows the tactical calculations that decide presidential elections. Provided Obama won those two states, he could not lose the election, hence the reason he ploughed his ground resources and money into those two states. The argument that the Electoral College ensures attention to small states is absurd, because at present only swing states get attention anyway. A national popular vote would mean that every vote counted, and thus Republican candidates would have significantly more incentive to campaign in New York and California just like Democrats could make a difference campaigning in Texas or Alabama. Clearly, this is a reason the national popular vote should replace the Electoral College.
Another argument often offered for keeping the Electoral College is that it has stood the test of time and delivers a clear result. Supporters will argue that to adopt the national popular vote would open the system to extensive litigation of every last vote causing endless recounts and confusing outcomes. Mitch McConnell recently made this argument in defence of the Electoral College when questioned on the NPV system being pursued by several states. His argument has a simplistic sense to it, because it is true that the Electoral College generally has returned a clear result with no litigation in the majority of circumstances.
However this argument on deeper inspection also has fundamental flaws. The Florida recount in 2000 where Bush won the Electoral College without winning the national vote demonstrates that the Electoral College is not as clear and easy as McConnell claims. An election in which the winner was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court shows that the argument backing a clear-cut winner is a weak one. The only reason the 2000 situation has not happened since then is because none of the elections since then have been particularly close. Even in 2004, where Bush won by a comfortable majority, had John Kerry won just 70,000 more votes in Ohio he would have won the election despite losing the national vote by 2 million. This wretched system for electing the president is far from clear and easy to understand, and is certainly not above litigation.
Finally, supporters of the Electoral College contend that if the system were changed to the national popular vote it would exponentially increase the cost of the election. This is because having to spend money equally in all 50 states because the votes suddenly all counted for the same weight would mean a massively widened net of money would be needed. It is true that the Electoral College currently means that campaigns can be concentrated in swing states, thus perhaps costing the candidates less overall. But is it really an advantage to say that Ohio and Florida get all the money and the rest of the states do not count?
A national popular vote would not necessarily mean more money, it would simply mean the available money would have to be spread more evenly. A situation where Ohio and Florida get a bit less money spent on them and perhaps the states of Oklahoma and Maryland get a bit more is simply an improvement to democracy. Further to this, the fact that every single vote counts would mean that candidates would have to listen to every state, and spend their resources accordingly. Election spending has spiralled out of control in the last ten years with the Electoral College in place, the Supreme Court has made sure of that. Changing to NPV might continue this trend, but with the last election in 2012 costing nearly $6 billion anyway, this is hardly a criticism that cannot also be aimed at the Electoral College.
Therefore, in summary it is clear that despite the criticisms aimed at NPV, it is a system which is superior in every way. It would not require a constitutional amendment, it would ensure fairer spread of resources and attention, and it would remove the insidious influence of swing states. Every counter that is offered can be conclusively blown away by NPV as has been shown above. For this reason, the Elecoral College should certainly be replaced by NPV.
Do National Party Conventions fulfil any useful functions? (15)
Intro: NPCs are held at the beginning of the presidential race in a Presidential election year. The traditional function of the NPC is threefold: 1) Choose the presidential candidate 2) choose the VP candidate 3) a forum for policy debate for the election. Are these functions now irrelevant?Useless:•
Due to the use of primaries in modern times, we already know who the presidential candidate is. (eg. 2008 McCain had won the nomination by super Tuesday) The delegate role-call is a ceremonial procedure and therefore this function is no longer effective.
•
We also know the VP candidate in advance, as the presidential candidate will announce their running mate in advance. (eg. in 2008, Sarah Palin gave an address to the GOP party activists at the NPC before the rolecall of the states that caused a McCain poll bounce.)
•
Policy debate is discouraged. Divides the party. Last time this happened was in 1996 at the nomination of Bob Dole, when an abortion argument seemed to rip the party in two.
•
Chance for delegates from all over America to get together and unite the party following a tough primary campaign (2008, Senator Clinton suspended the role-call at the DNC to promote Barack Obama)
•
Provide a platform to launch the national campaign and transition to debate against other party.
•
Media coverage is centred on the NPC and can therefore provide much needed attention. Poll bounces are common after NPCs. (2012, the DNC in North Carolina seen as better with speeches from Bill Clinton, Michele Obama and the president himself which provided Obama with a bounce right through September)
•
Chance to deliver a keynote speech that will provide a poll boost. (eg. McCain and Palin took the lead over Obama and Biden following the RNC in 2008, and Bill Clinton’s speech in 2012 really mobilised centrist voters who saw Clint Eastwood’s speech at the RNC confusing)
•
Choice of location can help win a swing state- (2008 DNC was in Colorado, 2008 RNC in Minnesota, 2012 RNC was in Florida and DNC was in North Carolina)
•
Possibility of a ‘white knight’ candidate emerging at the 2012 RNC. Mainly speculation but could show a traditional use of NPC returning. (Didn’t happen)
How important is the Vice-Presidential candidate in the Presidential election? (15)
Since the 12th amendment in 1804 the President and VP run together on a single ticket in the presidential election. Since this point, the VP has added to the presidential campaign in several crucial ways.•
The VP balances the ticket to balance out the perceived weaknesses of the presidential candidate, to try to appeal to as many voters as possible. The balances can be made for the following reasons:
•
Balance the ticket for experience. Eg. Obama chose Biden to balance his lack of experience in foreign affairs, Biden chaired the Senate committee for foreign affairs for 20 years.
•
Geographical balance. Kennedy from Massachusetts chose Johnson to appeal to the south.
•
Personal qualities. Kennedy was Catholic, so he chose strong protestant Johnson to balance. If Romney wins the 2012 nomination, his Mormon religion would require a similarly staunch Christian running mate like Marco Rubio, who would also sway the Hispanic and Latino vote. Could also argue that McCain chose Palin to balance the ticket for age.
•
Balance the ticket ideologically. Moderate McCain needed to balance the ticket for the social conservative vote with Palin. Romney needed the Tea Party favourite Paul Ryan to appeal to more right wing voters as he had been Governor of liberal Massachusetts.
•
Provide keynote speeches at campaign rallies and provide a poll bounce. Following Palin’s speech at the RNC in Minnesota in 2008, McCain took the lead, then following her disastrous performance on Katie Couric and consequent SNL parody, her credibility was destroyed and Matt Damon openly attacked the situation where such an unqualified person could have the nuclear codes if McCain died in office, which was possible with him well into his 70s.
•
The VP pick can heal the wounds opened by the primary season. After having fought a primary against each other in 1980, Reagan picked George HW Bush as his running mate to heal the party and also balance his perceived lack of substance.
•
However, the pick can also backfire and be a horrible weakness. Once the public realised how under-qualified Sarah Palin was she became an electoral liability. Other weak picks have been Paul Ryan who lacked experience to match Romney and was schooled by Biden in the 2012 debate as well as Kerry’s pick of John Edwards in 2004 which all in all resulted in a bland ticket.
Despite the lack of the presidential ticket mid-term elections hold huge significance for the political system. Firstly, they are a measure of public opinion on both the performance of the incumbent President and the party in control of Congress. This means that the mid-term election can send a very clear message to the President in the White House as well as politicians in the House and Senate. For example, the huge losses in the House of Representatives for Democrats in 2010 sent a clear message of discontent to Democrats about runaway government spending, which has resulted in Obama taking a noticeably more moderate line on tax and spending bills. Similarly, in 2014, if the Democrats make gains in the House it may send a message to House Republicans to soften their stance on immigration, gun control and gay marriage, showing a great significance of mid-term elections.
Secondly, it is significant that mid-term elections can make the President's agenda significantly more difficult to achieve or indeed, much easier. In 2002, Bush increased his majority in both Houses of Congress allowing him to quickly pass sweeping measures to defend against terrorism following the 9/11/2001 terror attacks. On the other hand, in 1994 and 2010 Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama both lost their House majorities to Republicans, effectively ending their ability to initiate clearly progressive legislation. Clinton was forced to adopt fiscally conservative bills such as the Line Item Veto Act 1996 and Obama had to sign the Budget Control Act 2011 that authorised the current sequestration. Had they controlled the House, these actions would not have been forced showing that mid-terms significantly affect Presidential ability to act.
Finally, mid-terms fundamentally set the agenda for the 2 years running up to the next presidential election and can provide party platforms for launching certain campaigns. In 2006, The 6 for '06 program by the Democrats which won back Congress showed the party that a clearly liberal ticket could win the White House in 2008, leading to them endorsing healthcare reform into their 2008 package. In the same way, the 2014 mid-terms will fundamentally reveal the public opinion on issues like gun control, gay rights and women's rights. If Republicans make gains, their 2016 candidates can adopt the popular messages from 2014, if Democrats make gains, it will be clear that liberal approaches to gay marriage and abortion will be necessary in the 2016 campaign. This final point shows the incredibly significant role that mid-terms have for a variety of reasons.
Secondly, it is significant that mid-term elections can make the President's agenda significantly more difficult to achieve or indeed, much easier. In 2002, Bush increased his majority in both Houses of Congress allowing him to quickly pass sweeping measures to defend against terrorism following the 9/11/2001 terror attacks. On the other hand, in 1994 and 2010 Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama both lost their House majorities to Republicans, effectively ending their ability to initiate clearly progressive legislation. Clinton was forced to adopt fiscally conservative bills such as the Line Item Veto Act 1996 and Obama had to sign the Budget Control Act 2011 that authorised the current sequestration. Had they controlled the House, these actions would not have been forced showing that mid-terms significantly affect Presidential ability to act.
Finally, mid-terms fundamentally set the agenda for the 2 years running up to the next presidential election and can provide party platforms for launching certain campaigns. In 2006, The 6 for '06 program by the Democrats which won back Congress showed the party that a clearly liberal ticket could win the White House in 2008, leading to them endorsing healthcare reform into their 2008 package. In the same way, the 2014 mid-terms will fundamentally reveal the public opinion on issues like gun control, gay rights and women's rights. If Republicans make gains, their 2016 candidates can adopt the popular messages from 2014, if Democrats make gains, it will be clear that liberal approaches to gay marriage and abortion will be necessary in the 2016 campaign. This final point shows the incredibly significant role that mid-terms have for a variety of reasons.
The polarisation that currently defines the political landscape in Washington D.C. has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the media since the 2010 midterm elections. The highly ideological members of the GOP that made up the House majority of the 112th Congress turned the institution into a gridlocked and dysfunctional arguing platform. Democrats have experienced a similar polarisation with the conservative Democrats coming from southern states slowly experiencing a loss of seats to the point that the Blue Dog Caucus of conservative Democrats has been eroded to just 13 members. So while New England and the West Coast have increasingly returned more progressive Democrats instead of moderate Republicans, the south has returned increasingly conservative Republicans instead of centrist Democrats. The middle has dropped off the Congressional map resulting in inevitable polarisation. This polarisation has been blamed for the inability of Congress to act. However, a more subtle reason exists for the real lack of ability of Congress to function. This clear geographical polarisation does sow the seeds of division, but modern transport and communications really account for why Congress cannot find middle ground.
The House of Representatives is the key to understanding the inability of Congress to function. In the House, one thing and one thing only matters; the congressional district. House members serve such a short term that everything they do has to serve the interests of their district in a very direct and immediate way, otherwise it will not garner any support. The intense loyalty to and also intense reliance on local voters of House representatives makes them very unlikely to ever do a deal that does not benefit their local voters.
The way that Washington works however, relies on compromise. Without agreement across the aisle between Republicans and Democrats nothing gets done, just as the Founding Fathers intended. However, when the Founding Fathers built Washington D.C. it was completely accepted that the representatives in the town would spend their lives there. The huge country and slow transportation meant that both House representatives and Senators lived together in Washington, which was the root of the deals done in past ages.
Senators and Congressmen, in personal contact everyday, inevitably built warm friendships and close personal relationships with members of both parties. The fact that these people were your colleagues with whom you achieved your working goals everyday made friendship and closer bonding inevitable. That close interpersonal contact between the individual members of the political community in Washington accounted for much of the ability to find middle ground and compromise. Today, this is slowly withering away.
With modern communication technology, politicians can stay in contact with their staff in Washington via any number of electronic mediums. They can effectively run their offices from anywhere on the planet. Added to this, the advances in air travel has made it very easy for politicians to jet between Washington and their home state with relative ease. In fact, the only reason they ever really need to be in Washington is for votes on the floor of the House or Senate, and these all happen between Tuesday and Thursday. This means that for Friday through Monday the majority of politicians are now in their home states making that absolutely vital home district effort.
This phenomenon is especially visible in the House, where the representatives require constant opinion poll boosts to ensure re-election after the short 2 year term. The desperate need for votes means that you will find House representatives in their local district more often than in Washington. Senators are slowly following suit. The effect of this is that inter-personal relationships in Washington have plummeted. Now, due to never being in company with each other, the politicians in Washington are much less likely to find compromise. Personal dislike based on ideological positions is common and the newer the politician, the less likely it is that any bridges have been built with other members. Just look at Ted Cruz in the Senate. As a freshman Senator, the idea is to build working relationships with other members. But Cruz bashes Democrats and Republicans alike with a confrontational style born out of ideology and lack of personal bonds. This effect of a more isolated and de-personalised Washington makes for ideological gridlock and immovable politicians.
Perhaps the last traces of bipartisanship are to be found in the Senate, where long serving members like Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) have been able to reignite the flames of bipartisan deals in Washington with their efforts on gun control and immigration reform. The Senate remains the institution insulated more securely against public opinion due to the 6 year terms they serve, meaning they can view proposals from a much more long-term viewpoint. For this reason, Senators are more often in Washington and more likely to meet and build relationships with other Senators from either party. This builds the prospect for passage of bills that can hurdle the barrier of the filibuster and make it into the House of Representatives. Sadly, upon reaching the House the problem of modern Washington is realised. House members of opposite parties are are as impersonal and cold to each other as is possible in the current age. They spend all their time in the home district and only come to Washington to vote following strict ideology and constituency interests. No matter how bipartisan the Senate is, everything it does is subject to the House vote and today, the House of Representatives is the source of dysfunctional Washington due to a complete lack of personal relationships that did exist once upon a time.
The House of Representatives is the key to understanding the inability of Congress to function. In the House, one thing and one thing only matters; the congressional district. House members serve such a short term that everything they do has to serve the interests of their district in a very direct and immediate way, otherwise it will not garner any support. The intense loyalty to and also intense reliance on local voters of House representatives makes them very unlikely to ever do a deal that does not benefit their local voters.
The way that Washington works however, relies on compromise. Without agreement across the aisle between Republicans and Democrats nothing gets done, just as the Founding Fathers intended. However, when the Founding Fathers built Washington D.C. it was completely accepted that the representatives in the town would spend their lives there. The huge country and slow transportation meant that both House representatives and Senators lived together in Washington, which was the root of the deals done in past ages.
Senators and Congressmen, in personal contact everyday, inevitably built warm friendships and close personal relationships with members of both parties. The fact that these people were your colleagues with whom you achieved your working goals everyday made friendship and closer bonding inevitable. That close interpersonal contact between the individual members of the political community in Washington accounted for much of the ability to find middle ground and compromise. Today, this is slowly withering away.
With modern communication technology, politicians can stay in contact with their staff in Washington via any number of electronic mediums. They can effectively run their offices from anywhere on the planet. Added to this, the advances in air travel has made it very easy for politicians to jet between Washington and their home state with relative ease. In fact, the only reason they ever really need to be in Washington is for votes on the floor of the House or Senate, and these all happen between Tuesday and Thursday. This means that for Friday through Monday the majority of politicians are now in their home states making that absolutely vital home district effort.
This phenomenon is especially visible in the House, where the representatives require constant opinion poll boosts to ensure re-election after the short 2 year term. The desperate need for votes means that you will find House representatives in their local district more often than in Washington. Senators are slowly following suit. The effect of this is that inter-personal relationships in Washington have plummeted. Now, due to never being in company with each other, the politicians in Washington are much less likely to find compromise. Personal dislike based on ideological positions is common and the newer the politician, the less likely it is that any bridges have been built with other members. Just look at Ted Cruz in the Senate. As a freshman Senator, the idea is to build working relationships with other members. But Cruz bashes Democrats and Republicans alike with a confrontational style born out of ideology and lack of personal bonds. This effect of a more isolated and de-personalised Washington makes for ideological gridlock and immovable politicians.
Perhaps the last traces of bipartisanship are to be found in the Senate, where long serving members like Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) have been able to reignite the flames of bipartisan deals in Washington with their efforts on gun control and immigration reform. The Senate remains the institution insulated more securely against public opinion due to the 6 year terms they serve, meaning they can view proposals from a much more long-term viewpoint. For this reason, Senators are more often in Washington and more likely to meet and build relationships with other Senators from either party. This builds the prospect for passage of bills that can hurdle the barrier of the filibuster and make it into the House of Representatives. Sadly, upon reaching the House the problem of modern Washington is realised. House members of opposite parties are are as impersonal and cold to each other as is possible in the current age. They spend all their time in the home district and only come to Washington to vote following strict ideology and constituency interests. No matter how bipartisan the Senate is, everything it does is subject to the House vote and today, the House of Representatives is the source of dysfunctional Washington due to a complete lack of personal relationships that did exist once upon a time.
I have a good suggestion guys. I think we Should share the essays we have been writing (either by taking pictures and attaching them on here or by attaching the file in document form - word format, or even copying and pasting them here) I think it'll be a very useful way of revising. THANK YOU TSWEETY FOR DOING SO ALREADY! Keep them coming guys xxxx
Wow this thread is so helpful- can't believe I only just found it! Does anyone have tips for memorising lots of statistics with different numbers and dates? I'm getting really confused :s
VERY HELPFUL THANK YOU! Could anyone help me out a little, to achieve an A* do you have to get the raw mark required for an A* on both papers? So looking at last years it would be a 68/69?
Original post by baffledchick
VERY HELPFUL THANK YOU! Could anyone help me out a little, to achieve an A* do you have to get the raw mark required for an A* on both papers? So looking at last years it would be a 68/69?
No it wasn't it was 68/90 for an A* .. was that a typo?
Original post by Michalia
No it wasn't it was 68/90 for an A* .. was that a typo?
Yeah sorry, I meant 68 or 69 not out of that lol, so do you need to get that mark on both A2 papers to get the A* overall?
Original post by baffledchick
Yeah sorry, I meant 68 or 69 not out of that lol, so do you need to get that mark on both A2 papers to get the A* overall?
ohhhhh i see i see, i was scared for a second had to go and check LOL. I don't think you necessarily need A* in both papers. I think that your UMS for both papers must just equal 180 UMS in total to get an A* overall. E.g I think you can get like 100 in one paper and 80 in the other paper or e.g 83 in one paper and 97 in the other.
Original post by Michalia
ohhhhh i see i see, i was scared for a second had to go and check LOL. I don't think you necessarily need A* in both papers. I think that your UMS for both papers must just equal 180 UMS in total to get an A* overall. E.g I think you can get like 100 in one paper and 80 in the other paper or e.g 83 in one paper and 97 in the other.
You guys seem to know what you're doing so could someone help me or please? Last year I got 153/200 UMS marks combined (76/100 in unit 1 and 77/100 in unit 2) so overall I got a B. Can someone tell me 1) how high or low this B is? 2) how many points I was off an A and 3) how many raw marks I need to get to achieve an A overall. Thank you so much in advance
Original post by Michalia
ohhhhh i see i see, i was scared for a second had to go and check LOL. I don't think you necessarily need A* in both papers. I think that your UMS for both papers must just equal 180 UMS in total to get an A* overall. E.g I think you can get like 100 in one paper and 80 in the other paper or e.g 83 in one paper and 97 in the other.
awww soorry, I must have proper scared you! Are you aiming for an A*? Any tips? Okay that's a relaxing thought
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 4C (9FM0 4C) - 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- chem help
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Over 500 questions on AQA Bio Unit 4 + Current Spec and old Spec papers + MS!
- WJEC A Level Government and Politics Paper 2 (1160U40-1) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- How can i sit A level further maths?
- Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 3C (9FM0 3C) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- As level exam in 10 days, need help
- further maths level grade boundaries
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- how can i answer the btec applied science unit 2D assignment
- Stuck on Past Paper
- Oxford or Cambridge?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- aqa a level chemistry in 3 months
- AQA Chem Unit 1 May 22nd 2015 *OFFICIAL THREAD*
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 12 hours ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 12 hours ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
