Revision Thread for A2 Edexcel Route C
Maybe a tad early, but I thought a thread where we could all share advice/revision tips/notes would be pretty useful for the June exams.
This is for candidates taking the Route C US & Comparative Government & Politics course, although other routes could hi-jack the thread if they like
This is for candidates taking the Route C US & Comparative Government & Politics course, although other routes could hi-jack the thread if they like
Scroll to see replies
*subscribes* 
Revision: The Powers of the Presidency
Initially the role of president was intended to be more of a head of state rather than a head of government. However, as political parties in today’s sense developed the president became a more political figure, leading and representing the most popular party. Such a turn was consolidated by Lincoln’s rebuke of the case of Southern secession; since this the president has had the political direction of the government in his hands.
Head of State Duties:
• The President represents the USA in relationships/negotiations with foreign countries. (why he has significant powers in terms of foreign policy and treaty making)
• He also unites the country in times of emergency/crisis e.g. FDR WW2, Bush Jr 9/11
• Acts in the national interest, furthering the interests of the whole of American society, regardless of party allegiance. ( which means looking after the interests of certain groups, in addition to society as a whole e.g. ethnic groups)
• Looking after security of the USA – protecting it from internal and external threats (part of his role as commander-in-chief) and is assisted by the agencies such as the FBI and CIA
• He acts as a figurehead, representing the spirit, traditions and culture of the USA
• He attempts to maintain national unity even in the fact of political controversy. (although some presidents become the controversy e.g. Nixon, Bush Jr, Clinton)
Head of Government Duties:
• He promotes his manifesto which was voted for during the election – in this respect he acts much like the UK PM.
• Supports sections of Congress who are seeking policies with which he agrees.
• Attempts to mediate between competing views in Congress, by making his views clear a d hinting at what he is prepared to support.
• Oversees the implementation of legislation which Congress has passed in the correct way to best benefit the USA – much like the UK PM and his cabinet do.
• Veto any legislation he believes isn’t in the USA’s best interests. (Though this is obviously subjective and coincides regularly with stuff he doesn’t like)
1. Propose Legislation
Laid out in article II of the Constitution. He can propose legislation to Congress, usually done in the annual State of the Union address in January. On live TV he addresses a joint session of Congress where he sets out the legislative agenda for the upcoming year. However, he can propose legislation at any time, calling press conferences or at a public event. E.g. Bush’s tax cuts, war on terror.
2. Submit the Annual Budget
Principally the most important piece of legislation, the annual federal budget is devised by the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) part of the president’s bureaucracy, EXOP (Executive Office of the President) The president then submits the budget to Congress. This is followed by a bargaining process, particularly difficult if Congress is controlled by the alternative party.
Also in regards to money; The president works alongside the OMB, proposing such measurs as new/altered taxes. The president also tends to be responsible for broad economic policy, using taxes/spending to stimulate the economy or act as an anti-inflationary measure. This is particularly apparent under Obama's stimulus package.
However, Congress also has substantial power in the budget, budget committees have the power to set levels of spending and the Appropriations Committees have even more power, allocating spending to each piece of legislation. The president and congress have different pressures. The president needs to consider the whole economy, whereas Congressmen need only think of their constituents, usually resulting in a desire for law taxes and high spending. This means compromising is imperative. The president can be specific about allocating funds to departments and projects in certain areas – which can be a bargaining chip to be used in negotiations with Congressmen. However, the Appropriations Committees can alter these plans, a bargaining chip for them.
3. Pardon
He possesses the power of pardon. Though normally reserved for low profile cases, its use has been controversial. E.g. Ford pardoned Nixon over the Watergate scandal. Bush Sr pardoned ex-Defense Secretary Weinberger over the Iran-Contra affair.
4. Nominate Federal Judges
Presidents must fill all federal positions; Supreme Court vacancies, trials and appeals courts. As appointments are for life this is an important power. However, this power is checked by the requirement of a simple majority confirmation vote by the Senate.
This is a rare occurence of a lack of separation of powers.
5. Nominate Executive Officials:
This requires the president to fills hundreds of positions in the executive branch. A newly elected President e.g. Obama, has a myriad of positions to fill. The most important being the 17 heads of the executive departments, which isn’t always an easy job e.g. Obama’s problems of filling the post of Commerce Secretary (Judd fiasco) and developments regarding corruption (Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killefer)
Just two weeks into the Obama presidency, a perception was beginning to form of a growing contradiction between the President's high-minded rhetoric on ethics and lobbying and the reality of his choices. Having promised a new era of responsibility and trumpeted tough, new lobbying restrictions for his administration, exceptions were beginning to be the rule
Furthermore, there are lower level officials in these 17 departments, ambassadors (don't usually replace them all, but do replace key ones e.g. Moscow, Bejing, London and Paris - so they act as his personal envoys abroad) agency heads and members of regulatory commissions. Such appointments continue throughout his term.
The principle intelligence service is the CIA, whose head is appointed by the president. Notably George Bush Sr. It became clear that the CIA were carrying out clandestine presidential orders abroad e.g. Chile, Vietnam in the 1970s. Consequently they’re now under intense congressional scrutiny, with a committee which has full access to information.
Once again the appointments are subjected to confirmation via a simple majority vote in the Senate.
6. Act as Chief Executive
Article II vests all executive power in the office of president; he runs the executive branch of the government. Much of the day-to-day running is actually delegated to others. The Executive Office of the President was established to assist the president in co-ordinating the work of the federal government.
7. Negotiate Treaties
This peace-making role has been used recently in such treaties as the Panama Canal Treaty (Carter) and Chemical Weapons Ban (Bush Sr) This power is also subject to the Senate, requiring a 2/3rds majority, sometimes a difficult job. One of the most high profile being Wilson’s failed Versailles job.
However, the president may also sign executive agreements, which are like treaties in that they are arrangements on trade, military co-operation...Etc. However, they aren’t legally binding in the way treaties are, but they don’t require Senate approval either. They have to be reported to Congress, although Congress can’t do anything about them.
8. Commander in Chief
This was particularly important between the 1940s – 1980s. WW2, Berlin, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam have seen presidents playing highly significant roles. Added to this is the death of the Soviet Russia, the demise of the Eastern Bloc and the Gulf War. However, post-Cold war politics saw the role diminished substantially – that is until the events of 9/11. Bush Jr found himself thrust into the role of a wartime president.
Once again Congress has power over the president, although the power is slightly dubious. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but this power hasn’t been used since 1941. Before the 1973 War Powers Resolution the president could do as he pleased in undeclared conflicts , but since then the president has requested Congress ‘authorise’ his use of troops. However, Congress also retains the ‘power
Initially the role of president was intended to be more of a head of state rather than a head of government. However, as political parties in today’s sense developed the president became a more political figure, leading and representing the most popular party. Such a turn was consolidated by Lincoln’s rebuke of the case of Southern secession; since this the president has had the political direction of the government in his hands.
Head of State Duties:
• The President represents the USA in relationships/negotiations with foreign countries. (why he has significant powers in terms of foreign policy and treaty making)
• He also unites the country in times of emergency/crisis e.g. FDR WW2, Bush Jr 9/11
• Acts in the national interest, furthering the interests of the whole of American society, regardless of party allegiance. ( which means looking after the interests of certain groups, in addition to society as a whole e.g. ethnic groups)
• Looking after security of the USA – protecting it from internal and external threats (part of his role as commander-in-chief) and is assisted by the agencies such as the FBI and CIA
• He acts as a figurehead, representing the spirit, traditions and culture of the USA
• He attempts to maintain national unity even in the fact of political controversy. (although some presidents become the controversy e.g. Nixon, Bush Jr, Clinton)
Head of Government Duties:
• He promotes his manifesto which was voted for during the election – in this respect he acts much like the UK PM.
• Supports sections of Congress who are seeking policies with which he agrees.
• Attempts to mediate between competing views in Congress, by making his views clear a d hinting at what he is prepared to support.
• Oversees the implementation of legislation which Congress has passed in the correct way to best benefit the USA – much like the UK PM and his cabinet do.
• Veto any legislation he believes isn’t in the USA’s best interests. (Though this is obviously subjective and coincides regularly with stuff he doesn’t like)
1. Propose Legislation
Laid out in article II of the Constitution. He can propose legislation to Congress, usually done in the annual State of the Union address in January. On live TV he addresses a joint session of Congress where he sets out the legislative agenda for the upcoming year. However, he can propose legislation at any time, calling press conferences or at a public event. E.g. Bush’s tax cuts, war on terror.
2. Submit the Annual Budget
Principally the most important piece of legislation, the annual federal budget is devised by the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) part of the president’s bureaucracy, EXOP (Executive Office of the President) The president then submits the budget to Congress. This is followed by a bargaining process, particularly difficult if Congress is controlled by the alternative party.
Also in regards to money; The president works alongside the OMB, proposing such measurs as new/altered taxes. The president also tends to be responsible for broad economic policy, using taxes/spending to stimulate the economy or act as an anti-inflationary measure. This is particularly apparent under Obama's stimulus package.
However, Congress also has substantial power in the budget, budget committees have the power to set levels of spending and the Appropriations Committees have even more power, allocating spending to each piece of legislation. The president and congress have different pressures. The president needs to consider the whole economy, whereas Congressmen need only think of their constituents, usually resulting in a desire for law taxes and high spending. This means compromising is imperative. The president can be specific about allocating funds to departments and projects in certain areas – which can be a bargaining chip to be used in negotiations with Congressmen. However, the Appropriations Committees can alter these plans, a bargaining chip for them.
3. Pardon
He possesses the power of pardon. Though normally reserved for low profile cases, its use has been controversial. E.g. Ford pardoned Nixon over the Watergate scandal. Bush Sr pardoned ex-Defense Secretary Weinberger over the Iran-Contra affair.
4. Nominate Federal Judges
Presidents must fill all federal positions; Supreme Court vacancies, trials and appeals courts. As appointments are for life this is an important power. However, this power is checked by the requirement of a simple majority confirmation vote by the Senate.
This is a rare occurence of a lack of separation of powers.
5. Nominate Executive Officials:
This requires the president to fills hundreds of positions in the executive branch. A newly elected President e.g. Obama, has a myriad of positions to fill. The most important being the 17 heads of the executive departments, which isn’t always an easy job e.g. Obama’s problems of filling the post of Commerce Secretary (Judd fiasco) and developments regarding corruption (Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killefer)
Just two weeks into the Obama presidency, a perception was beginning to form of a growing contradiction between the President's high-minded rhetoric on ethics and lobbying and the reality of his choices. Having promised a new era of responsibility and trumpeted tough, new lobbying restrictions for his administration, exceptions were beginning to be the rule
Furthermore, there are lower level officials in these 17 departments, ambassadors (don't usually replace them all, but do replace key ones e.g. Moscow, Bejing, London and Paris - so they act as his personal envoys abroad) agency heads and members of regulatory commissions. Such appointments continue throughout his term.
The principle intelligence service is the CIA, whose head is appointed by the president. Notably George Bush Sr. It became clear that the CIA were carrying out clandestine presidential orders abroad e.g. Chile, Vietnam in the 1970s. Consequently they’re now under intense congressional scrutiny, with a committee which has full access to information.
Once again the appointments are subjected to confirmation via a simple majority vote in the Senate.
6. Act as Chief Executive
Article II vests all executive power in the office of president; he runs the executive branch of the government. Much of the day-to-day running is actually delegated to others. The Executive Office of the President was established to assist the president in co-ordinating the work of the federal government.
7. Negotiate Treaties
This peace-making role has been used recently in such treaties as the Panama Canal Treaty (Carter) and Chemical Weapons Ban (Bush Sr) This power is also subject to the Senate, requiring a 2/3rds majority, sometimes a difficult job. One of the most high profile being Wilson’s failed Versailles job.
However, the president may also sign executive agreements, which are like treaties in that they are arrangements on trade, military co-operation...Etc. However, they aren’t legally binding in the way treaties are, but they don’t require Senate approval either. They have to be reported to Congress, although Congress can’t do anything about them.
8. Commander in Chief
This was particularly important between the 1940s – 1980s. WW2, Berlin, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam have seen presidents playing highly significant roles. Added to this is the death of the Soviet Russia, the demise of the Eastern Bloc and the Gulf War. However, post-Cold war politics saw the role diminished substantially – that is until the events of 9/11. Bush Jr found himself thrust into the role of a wartime president.
Once again Congress has power over the president, although the power is slightly dubious. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but this power hasn’t been used since 1941. Before the 1973 War Powers Resolution the president could do as he pleased in undeclared conflicts , but since then the president has requested Congress ‘authorise’ his use of troops. However, Congress also retains the ‘power
Revision: The Vice-President
Selection, Election & Appointment:
Electing a VP
The selection of the VP is made by the party’s presidential candidate, at, or just before the National Party Convention. The VP and presidential candidate then run together for election on a ‘joint ticket’ When searching for a VP candidate, a presidential candidate searches for someone who will balance out their perceived/real weaknesses. This is called running on a ‘Balanced Ticket’ Balance is achieved in areas such as geographic location, political experience, age, race, religion, ideology, gender..etc.
The 2008 McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden. 2000/2004 Bush/Cheney were prime examples of balanced tickets
Appointing a VP
However, a VP is not always elected. In 1967 the 25th Amendment was passed which stipulated that in certain circumstances a VP may be appointed. If the office of VP becomes vacant the president can appoint a replacement, though his choice needs to be confirmed by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. This has happened twice since its implementation:
• 1973 – VP Spyro Agnew resigned over charges of tax evasion and was replaced by Gerald Ford
• 1974 – President Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal, elevating Ford to the office of president and requiring Ford to appoint Nelson Rockefeller VP.
Powers of the VP
Sarah Palin epitomised the attitude towards the office of VP
"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” – Palin
However, the office does have some powers.
1. Presiding officer of the Senate, though rarely performs this function
2. Power to break a tied vote in the Senate. E.g. Cheney in 2001 over Bush’s tax cut.
3. Counting and announcing the Electoral College vote. E.g. Al Gore in 2001 announcing his own defeat.
4. Becomes serving president upon the death/resignation/impeachment of the president (perhaps the only important power) This has occurred 4 times.
5. Become acting president if the president is declared/declares himself disabled (provision of the 25th Amendment) occurred twice.
Selection, Election & Appointment:
Electing a VP
The selection of the VP is made by the party’s presidential candidate, at, or just before the National Party Convention. The VP and presidential candidate then run together for election on a ‘joint ticket’ When searching for a VP candidate, a presidential candidate searches for someone who will balance out their perceived/real weaknesses. This is called running on a ‘Balanced Ticket’ Balance is achieved in areas such as geographic location, political experience, age, race, religion, ideology, gender..etc.
The 2008 McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden. 2000/2004 Bush/Cheney were prime examples of balanced tickets
Appointing a VP
However, a VP is not always elected. In 1967 the 25th Amendment was passed which stipulated that in certain circumstances a VP may be appointed. If the office of VP becomes vacant the president can appoint a replacement, though his choice needs to be confirmed by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. This has happened twice since its implementation:
• 1973 – VP Spyro Agnew resigned over charges of tax evasion and was replaced by Gerald Ford
• 1974 – President Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal, elevating Ford to the office of president and requiring Ford to appoint Nelson Rockefeller VP.
Powers of the VP
Sarah Palin epitomised the attitude towards the office of VP
"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” – Palin
However, the office does have some powers.
1. Presiding officer of the Senate, though rarely performs this function
2. Power to break a tied vote in the Senate. E.g. Cheney in 2001 over Bush’s tax cut.
3. Counting and announcing the Electoral College vote. E.g. Al Gore in 2001 announcing his own defeat.
4. Becomes serving president upon the death/resignation/impeachment of the president (perhaps the only important power) This has occurred 4 times.
5. Become acting president if the president is declared/declares himself disabled (provision of the 25th Amendment) occurred twice.
Revision: Congressional Elections
• Occur every 2 years
• Members of the House of Representatives serve 2 year terms
• Members of the Senate serve 6 year terms, with 1/3rd of the Senate up for re-election every 2 years.
• Therefore, in every congressional cycle 1/3rd of the Senate and all of the House are up for re-election.
• These elections are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
• In years divisible by 4, congressional elections coincide with presidential elections (2000,2004,2008)
• Elections between presidential elections are known as ‘mid-terms’
Constitutional Requirements for Members of Congress:
Senate:
• At least 30 years old
• US citizen for at least 9 years
• Resident of the state they represent
House:
• At least 25 years old
• US citizen for at least 7 years
• Resident of the state they represent > However, many states have enacted the ‘locality rule’ which stipulates that a member must be a resident of the Congressional District he/she represents.
How to Win a Congressional Election:
Secure the nomination of either the Democrats or Republicans; third party candidates rarely win seats in Congress. To secure the nomination a candidate may need to participate in a congressional primary (Differs from presidential primary in the sense that the winner of the primary automatically becomes the party’s candidate in the general election) these are usually held between May – September.
On occasion incumbents might be challenged for the nomination in the upcoming election and will have to contest a primary.
For incumbent Senators defeat is highly unlikely e.g. only 3 incumbents were defeated between 1982-2002, although in the 2008 election some high profile senators such as Liz Dole lost their seats.
House members are less secure, although they still have a high chance of success in retaining their seat. However, it would seem that a member of either chamber would have to do something fairly unusual/bad to lose a primary.
Trends in Congressional Elections:
The majority of analysis of congressional elections comes from the mid-terms, as it’s difficult to separate voting intentions in elections that coincide with presidential elections. There are a few trends that appear in mid-terms:
1. Coat-Tails Effect
A strong candidate at the top of the ticket e.g. presidential candidate, or in mid-terms a gubernatorial candidate, can aid other candidates into electoral success. Perhaps shown in the 2008 election, best example before that being Reagan in 1980.
However, in recent elections there has been a somewhat reverse coat-tails effect in operation. 1992 Clinton won but made no gains, indeed losing seats in the House.
A case of the mid-term Gubernatorial candidate coat-tails effect was shown for Texas Republicans in 1998 when Governor George W Bush’s popularity swept others into office.
2. Split-Ticket Voting
Somebody voting for candidates from different parties for different offices at the same election. This is due to US elections being more candidate or issue centred than to do with party loyalty. Voters also try to uphold the idea of a divided government; a president from one party but Congress controlled by the other e.g. 1996 Democrat president, but Republican congress
3. Losses of the President’s Party in Mid-Terms
Since the Senate became directly elected there has been an average of the president’s party losing 31 House seats and 4 Senate seats in Mid-Terms. On only 2 occasions has it made gains in both chambers (1934 &2002) This is because:
(A) If a president had a coat-tails effect 2 years previously, his presence is now not on the ballot, so his party’s candidates won’t do as well
(B) Voters see Mid-Terms as a chance to show their disapproval/discontent with the president’s first 2 years e.g. in 1994 when Republicans made significant gains.
4. Strong Support for Incumbents
Strong evidence of support for incumbents, with re-election rates passing 95% on my occasions
5. National/Local Voting
In mid-terms there’s evidence of voting being both national and local. In 1994 and 2002 in particular the Republicans attempted to nationalise the mid-term elections.
In 1994 this was achieved through the ‘Contract with America’ a policy programme which nearly all House Republicans signed and which became the nationwide focal point of their campaign.
In 2002 they turned the mid-terms into a referendum on Bush’s first 2 years in power and the ‘war on terror’ and regime change in Iraq. Bush embarked on a nationwide tour in the final days of the election, including specifically the states which key Senate races. Furthermore the Republican National Committee worked a saturation campaign; identifying likely Republican voters and bombarding them with phone calls, mailshots and visits.
However, generally voters tend to cast their votes upon local issues and the record of the incumbent. Voters consider the records of the incumbents carefully, particularly in aspects such as attendance at roll-call votes in the Senate and how they cast them.
E.g. Huddleston V McConnell in the 1984 Kentucky election. McConnell won over Huddleston’s frequent absences from Senate votes and failure to safeguard its interests.
• Occur every 2 years
• Members of the House of Representatives serve 2 year terms
• Members of the Senate serve 6 year terms, with 1/3rd of the Senate up for re-election every 2 years.
• Therefore, in every congressional cycle 1/3rd of the Senate and all of the House are up for re-election.
• These elections are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
• In years divisible by 4, congressional elections coincide with presidential elections (2000,2004,2008)
• Elections between presidential elections are known as ‘mid-terms’
Constitutional Requirements for Members of Congress:
Senate:
• At least 30 years old
• US citizen for at least 9 years
• Resident of the state they represent
House:
• At least 25 years old
• US citizen for at least 7 years
• Resident of the state they represent > However, many states have enacted the ‘locality rule’ which stipulates that a member must be a resident of the Congressional District he/she represents.
How to Win a Congressional Election:
Secure the nomination of either the Democrats or Republicans; third party candidates rarely win seats in Congress. To secure the nomination a candidate may need to participate in a congressional primary (Differs from presidential primary in the sense that the winner of the primary automatically becomes the party’s candidate in the general election) these are usually held between May – September.
On occasion incumbents might be challenged for the nomination in the upcoming election and will have to contest a primary.
For incumbent Senators defeat is highly unlikely e.g. only 3 incumbents were defeated between 1982-2002, although in the 2008 election some high profile senators such as Liz Dole lost their seats.
House members are less secure, although they still have a high chance of success in retaining their seat. However, it would seem that a member of either chamber would have to do something fairly unusual/bad to lose a primary.
Trends in Congressional Elections:
The majority of analysis of congressional elections comes from the mid-terms, as it’s difficult to separate voting intentions in elections that coincide with presidential elections. There are a few trends that appear in mid-terms:
1. Coat-Tails Effect
A strong candidate at the top of the ticket e.g. presidential candidate, or in mid-terms a gubernatorial candidate, can aid other candidates into electoral success. Perhaps shown in the 2008 election, best example before that being Reagan in 1980.
However, in recent elections there has been a somewhat reverse coat-tails effect in operation. 1992 Clinton won but made no gains, indeed losing seats in the House.
A case of the mid-term Gubernatorial candidate coat-tails effect was shown for Texas Republicans in 1998 when Governor George W Bush’s popularity swept others into office.
2. Split-Ticket Voting
Somebody voting for candidates from different parties for different offices at the same election. This is due to US elections being more candidate or issue centred than to do with party loyalty. Voters also try to uphold the idea of a divided government; a president from one party but Congress controlled by the other e.g. 1996 Democrat president, but Republican congress
3. Losses of the President’s Party in Mid-Terms
Since the Senate became directly elected there has been an average of the president’s party losing 31 House seats and 4 Senate seats in Mid-Terms. On only 2 occasions has it made gains in both chambers (1934 &2002) This is because:
(A) If a president had a coat-tails effect 2 years previously, his presence is now not on the ballot, so his party’s candidates won’t do as well
(B) Voters see Mid-Terms as a chance to show their disapproval/discontent with the president’s first 2 years e.g. in 1994 when Republicans made significant gains.
4. Strong Support for Incumbents
Strong evidence of support for incumbents, with re-election rates passing 95% on my occasions
5. National/Local Voting
In mid-terms there’s evidence of voting being both national and local. In 1994 and 2002 in particular the Republicans attempted to nationalise the mid-term elections.
In 1994 this was achieved through the ‘Contract with America’ a policy programme which nearly all House Republicans signed and which became the nationwide focal point of their campaign.
In 2002 they turned the mid-terms into a referendum on Bush’s first 2 years in power and the ‘war on terror’ and regime change in Iraq. Bush embarked on a nationwide tour in the final days of the election, including specifically the states which key Senate races. Furthermore the Republican National Committee worked a saturation campaign; identifying likely Republican voters and bombarding them with phone calls, mailshots and visits.
However, generally voters tend to cast their votes upon local issues and the record of the incumbent. Voters consider the records of the incumbents carefully, particularly in aspects such as attendance at roll-call votes in the Senate and how they cast them.
E.g. Huddleston V McConnell in the 1984 Kentucky election. McConnell won over Huddleston’s frequent absences from Senate votes and failure to safeguard its interests.
Revision: Constitutions
A constitution is the framework of government, which sets out a series of relationships within a state; those between different branches of government and those between the people and the government. It also sets out the roles, powers and jurisdiction of each branch, in addition to procedures for its own alternation.
Constitutions are either created all in one go, or evolve over time (revolution v evolution) The US constitution was written all at once, forming an entirely new system (1786) whereas the UK’s has evolved since 1066.
Codified V Uncodified
The UK is unusual in having an Uncodified constitution, it is largely unwritten and comprised of various sources (E.U. law, statue law, common law, judicial precedent) whereas the US constitution is found largely in one document.
However, this isn’t entirely accurate. Parts of the US constitution come from statute/common law e.g. War Powers Act, impeachment being a criminal offence so dealt with by federal law.
The UK has some codified content e.g. Magna Carta. Constitutions are a mash up of the two forms, so constitution is purely codified.
Codified
• Entrenched: deliberately difficult to alter. In the UK an act of parliament will alter the constitution, with any new law taking primacy due to parliamentary sovereignty. In the US a lengthy process involving all branches of government and the states is necessary.
However, this means they’re inflexible and find it difficult to adapt to change. Vague wording can aid flexibility.
• Checks and Balances: In the case of the UK and US, the codified constitution of the US has better checks and balances. Each branch of government is separate in personnel and shares powers. In the UK the branches are merged, with power lying mainly in one place.
However, this separation can lead to gridlock and weak government. The merged powers of the UK government have given rise to an ‘elected dictatorship’
• Awareness and Protection of Rights: Bill of Rights in the US. This ensures citizens can check their rights and gives a place of reference for decisions regarding rights and liberties. The UK has no such equivalent, though the Human Rights Act does exist, although this is only an act of parliament and can easily be repealed/amended. Such rights can get out of control e.g. gun control in the US.
• Judicial Review: A written constitution provides the country with a safeguard against government in the form of the judiciary. This can be perceived however, as giving unelected people too much power, and elected judges aren’t a possibility due to their impartial and objective nature. Even appointees of elected officials have been criticised for being too politically involved
Key Factors for a Constitution:
• Legitimacy
• Sovereignty
• Flexibility
• Entrenchment
• Safeguards
• Judicial position
• Style of government
Constitutions are both a result of, and a contributor to political culture. If they are in use with lack of complaint from the people, then they can be seen as effective and working.
Differences in Constitutions
Elements such as fusion/separation of power, codified/Uncodified, revolution/evolution are inextricably linked to the political cultures of the US and UK.
• Democracy & Sovereignty
Differ in how much participation the electorate have in the process and where power lies. In the US democracy is widespread, and sovereignty lies with the people. In the UK, democracy is restricted to the ‘representative democracy’ and the whole system revolved around parliamentary sovereignty.
In the US the Head Executive/Head of State, lower and upper chamber and local government are all directly elected. In the UK the Head Executive is the head of the largest party in the lower chamber, the Head of State is a hereditary monarch, the upper chamber is unelected/appointed and only the lower chamber is directly elected. In addition to this the US has recall elections, initiatives, referenda and elections for local officials, whereas the UK merely rarely uses referenda.
• Type of Government
The US Separation of powers is designed to keep personnel separate and powers shared. The UK has a system of fused powers with all branches merged. The US is known as a ‘Presidential Government’ and characterised by the legislature and executive being separate. The UK system is ‘Parliamentary Government’ and power is derived from the legislature.
In the US executive and legislative power is derived via an election from the people, and is checked by the other branches, whereas in the UK executive power is granted by parliament members taken from parliament, and legislative powers are derived from the electorate in an election, but then unchecked. In terms of judiciary, in the US judicial power is derived from the constitution, and judges are appointed by other branches, whereas in the UK the constitution is weak, and judges are appointed by the executive, then unchecked. In the US local government power is separate (due to federal system) from the federal government, whereas in the UK, it’s granted by parliament.
Therefore, in the US sovereignty lies with the electorate. They have more electoral strength, the executive and legislature are elected separately, power is split between the branches, and the people have a bigger say in who fills these branches.
In the UK with its parliamentary sovereignty, MPs are elected, but then parliament can do whatever it wishes, even changing the timing of elections or process itself.
• Federal V Unitary
UK is a unitary state, with power vested in one place; all other power is allocated by parliament and can be revoked.
US is a federal state, with federal and state level government. This sets out the jurisdictions of each level, and has numerous checks and balances alongside the separation of powers. This is a sensible model in such a large country.
Federalism:
• Guards against an overly strong central government
• Allows greater regional independence and democratic participation – enhances legitimacy
• Maintains unity within a nation that would be too large/diverse to be held together otherwise.
• Ideal for testing policies and recruiting people.
• However, it can result in gridlock, confrontation – especially if local areas refuse to implement national policy, and can even cause further divisions.
Unitary
• Promotes national unity
• Promotes uniformity
• Promotes equality
• Benefits of scale
A constitution is the framework of government, which sets out a series of relationships within a state; those between different branches of government and those between the people and the government. It also sets out the roles, powers and jurisdiction of each branch, in addition to procedures for its own alternation.
Constitutions are either created all in one go, or evolve over time (revolution v evolution) The US constitution was written all at once, forming an entirely new system (1786) whereas the UK’s has evolved since 1066.
Codified V Uncodified
The UK is unusual in having an Uncodified constitution, it is largely unwritten and comprised of various sources (E.U. law, statue law, common law, judicial precedent) whereas the US constitution is found largely in one document.
However, this isn’t entirely accurate. Parts of the US constitution come from statute/common law e.g. War Powers Act, impeachment being a criminal offence so dealt with by federal law.
The UK has some codified content e.g. Magna Carta. Constitutions are a mash up of the two forms, so constitution is purely codified.
Codified
• Entrenched: deliberately difficult to alter. In the UK an act of parliament will alter the constitution, with any new law taking primacy due to parliamentary sovereignty. In the US a lengthy process involving all branches of government and the states is necessary.
However, this means they’re inflexible and find it difficult to adapt to change. Vague wording can aid flexibility.
• Checks and Balances: In the case of the UK and US, the codified constitution of the US has better checks and balances. Each branch of government is separate in personnel and shares powers. In the UK the branches are merged, with power lying mainly in one place.
However, this separation can lead to gridlock and weak government. The merged powers of the UK government have given rise to an ‘elected dictatorship’
• Awareness and Protection of Rights: Bill of Rights in the US. This ensures citizens can check their rights and gives a place of reference for decisions regarding rights and liberties. The UK has no such equivalent, though the Human Rights Act does exist, although this is only an act of parliament and can easily be repealed/amended. Such rights can get out of control e.g. gun control in the US.
• Judicial Review: A written constitution provides the country with a safeguard against government in the form of the judiciary. This can be perceived however, as giving unelected people too much power, and elected judges aren’t a possibility due to their impartial and objective nature. Even appointees of elected officials have been criticised for being too politically involved
Key Factors for a Constitution:
• Legitimacy
• Sovereignty
• Flexibility
• Entrenchment
• Safeguards
• Judicial position
• Style of government
Constitutions are both a result of, and a contributor to political culture. If they are in use with lack of complaint from the people, then they can be seen as effective and working.
Differences in Constitutions
Elements such as fusion/separation of power, codified/Uncodified, revolution/evolution are inextricably linked to the political cultures of the US and UK.
• Democracy & Sovereignty
Differ in how much participation the electorate have in the process and where power lies. In the US democracy is widespread, and sovereignty lies with the people. In the UK, democracy is restricted to the ‘representative democracy’ and the whole system revolved around parliamentary sovereignty.
In the US the Head Executive/Head of State, lower and upper chamber and local government are all directly elected. In the UK the Head Executive is the head of the largest party in the lower chamber, the Head of State is a hereditary monarch, the upper chamber is unelected/appointed and only the lower chamber is directly elected. In addition to this the US has recall elections, initiatives, referenda and elections for local officials, whereas the UK merely rarely uses referenda.
• Type of Government
The US Separation of powers is designed to keep personnel separate and powers shared. The UK has a system of fused powers with all branches merged. The US is known as a ‘Presidential Government’ and characterised by the legislature and executive being separate. The UK system is ‘Parliamentary Government’ and power is derived from the legislature.
In the US executive and legislative power is derived via an election from the people, and is checked by the other branches, whereas in the UK executive power is granted by parliament members taken from parliament, and legislative powers are derived from the electorate in an election, but then unchecked. In terms of judiciary, in the US judicial power is derived from the constitution, and judges are appointed by other branches, whereas in the UK the constitution is weak, and judges are appointed by the executive, then unchecked. In the US local government power is separate (due to federal system) from the federal government, whereas in the UK, it’s granted by parliament.
Therefore, in the US sovereignty lies with the electorate. They have more electoral strength, the executive and legislature are elected separately, power is split between the branches, and the people have a bigger say in who fills these branches.
In the UK with its parliamentary sovereignty, MPs are elected, but then parliament can do whatever it wishes, even changing the timing of elections or process itself.
• Federal V Unitary
UK is a unitary state, with power vested in one place; all other power is allocated by parliament and can be revoked.
US is a federal state, with federal and state level government. This sets out the jurisdictions of each level, and has numerous checks and balances alongside the separation of powers. This is a sensible model in such a large country.
Federalism:
• Guards against an overly strong central government
• Allows greater regional independence and democratic participation – enhances legitimacy
• Maintains unity within a nation that would be too large/diverse to be held together otherwise.
• Ideal for testing policies and recruiting people.
• However, it can result in gridlock, confrontation – especially if local areas refuse to implement national policy, and can even cause further divisions.
Unitary
• Promotes national unity
• Promotes uniformity
• Promotes equality
• Benefits of scale
Woo your notes are amazing!!!!!
I'm using them to revise for a test tommorow now!
I'll try and get some of my essays up that I've had to do....most are just exams questions given for homework.
I'm using them to revise for a test tommorow now!
I'll try and get some of my essays up that I've had to do....most are just exams questions given for homework.
The US system of Checks and Balances is ineffective. Discuss.
The Founding Fathers feared tyranny and dictatorship so decided to follow the Montesquieu theory of the separation of powers, and extend it to the constitutional system of checks and balances. The USA was a new country throwing off what it saw as the tyranny of the British King and Parliament. It therefore made sure the President was not a king and that Congress was also limited in its powers, with regard to president, states and Constitution. All the branches of government are in theory limited by each other. Purpose of constitution was to limit power of government and give freedom and opportunity to citizens.
There are checks and balances placed on all three areas of government; the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, with each branch being checked over by the other two.
It is not possible for Congress to pass any law it likes, unlike in UK where there is parliamentary sovereignty. Its measures can be declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court through the power of judicial review. For example, the New Deal Acts in 1935 and 1936. In 1998, in Clinton v. New York City, the Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. Congress’ laws can also be vetoed by President. A full veto can occur, whereby the President can completely reject a bill. Clinton vetoed budget reconciliation bill 1995 to save Arctic wildlife refuge, plus 35 other bills. However, only about 3% of bills are vetoed, and Bush did not veto any bills 2001-2005. However, Bush did use the ‘pocket veto’ in 2007, when he claimed that he had pocket vetoed H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008”, even though the House of Representatives had designated agents to receive presidential messages before adjourning.
However, President’s vetoes can in turn be overridden by Congress. To do this, a two-thirds majority needs to be gained in both houses of Congress. During President Clinton’s two terms, Congress overrode two of his vetoes, including the 1995 Securities Bill. Yet, in practice, Congress very rarely overcomes President’s veto, e.g. only 0.7% of all vetoes overridden until 1996 according to Ragsdale.
Although the President may be the chief legislature, he cannot introduce or pass laws directly; everything must be passed through Congress. In turn, it is possible for Congress to amend, block, or even reject items of legislation recommended by the president. The recent ‘bail-out’ bill was rejected by the House of Representatives, with the majority of Republicans voting similarly. Yet that decision was changed when the legislation was approved by the Senate.
President does not have ‘power of the purse’, which is perhaps the most powerful tool Congress has in relation to Executive branch. All the money that the president wants to spend on his policies must be approved by Congress. Its refusal to vote for this money will significantly curtail what the president can do, be it in domestic or foreign policy.
All nominations by the president for the executive branch of the federal judicary must be approved by congress. President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers in October 2005, for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The nomination was met with opposition from both sides of the political spectrum, and on October 27, President Bush withdrew her nomination, saying Miers had asked him to do so.
Investigations by congress upon the activities of a president can ultimately lead to an impeachment by the House of Representatives. This is the ultimate check that Congress holds over the executive, with two presidents (Johnson 1868, Clinton 1998) having been impeached by a simple majority. However, it is the Senate that has the power to acquit, and on both of Clinton’s charges they did so. A President has never been found guilty after being impeached, showing signs that this is a check not working.
A check by the executive over the judiciary is that of presidential pardon. However, this has become something of a controversy in recent times. On the final day of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including Mark Pritchard, a notorious tax fugitive.
Constitution can itself be amended by two thirds majority of Congress and by three quarters of states to bring into modern times and rebut accusations of inflexibility. The 19th Amendment gave women the vote, and the 26th reducing the voting age to 18. There have only been 17 amendments since 1791, suggesting that the system is working well.
However, the judiciary has great power despite need to be confirmed. Bush had a Supreme Court entirely chosen by predecessors up until 2005. The Supreme Court has been known to also go against public opinion, as was the case with Furman v Georgia, in 1972 when it banned all death penalties. This was something that the Founding Fathers would not have intended to happen. This decision was reversed four years later.
Congress and President can get into ‘gridlock’ when the dominating party differs to each branch. This can create a ‘divided government’, which prevents necessary action being taken. Clinton’s failure to get his health reforms through in 1993 is an example of this, as is when Bush faced the Senate Democratic majority 2001 and since 2006 midterms. This might be the system not working well.
Many presidents have also accused the Senate of either rejecting or blocking their judicial nominations for partisan reasons, slowing down much of the work within the courts.
Overall, checks and balances can lead to both ineffective and effective government. Bills are scrutinised more closely, treaties checked more closely, and nominees questioned more vigorously in the conformation process. Yet, some checks and balances have proved problematic in modern times, preventing important legislation from passing, and certain powers being abused. However, the checks and balances of the Constitution have stood the test of time well, with very limited change.
The Founding Fathers feared tyranny and dictatorship so decided to follow the Montesquieu theory of the separation of powers, and extend it to the constitutional system of checks and balances. The USA was a new country throwing off what it saw as the tyranny of the British King and Parliament. It therefore made sure the President was not a king and that Congress was also limited in its powers, with regard to president, states and Constitution. All the branches of government are in theory limited by each other. Purpose of constitution was to limit power of government and give freedom and opportunity to citizens.
There are checks and balances placed on all three areas of government; the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, with each branch being checked over by the other two.
It is not possible for Congress to pass any law it likes, unlike in UK where there is parliamentary sovereignty. Its measures can be declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court through the power of judicial review. For example, the New Deal Acts in 1935 and 1936. In 1998, in Clinton v. New York City, the Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. Congress’ laws can also be vetoed by President. A full veto can occur, whereby the President can completely reject a bill. Clinton vetoed budget reconciliation bill 1995 to save Arctic wildlife refuge, plus 35 other bills. However, only about 3% of bills are vetoed, and Bush did not veto any bills 2001-2005. However, Bush did use the ‘pocket veto’ in 2007, when he claimed that he had pocket vetoed H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008”, even though the House of Representatives had designated agents to receive presidential messages before adjourning.
However, President’s vetoes can in turn be overridden by Congress. To do this, a two-thirds majority needs to be gained in both houses of Congress. During President Clinton’s two terms, Congress overrode two of his vetoes, including the 1995 Securities Bill. Yet, in practice, Congress very rarely overcomes President’s veto, e.g. only 0.7% of all vetoes overridden until 1996 according to Ragsdale.
Although the President may be the chief legislature, he cannot introduce or pass laws directly; everything must be passed through Congress. In turn, it is possible for Congress to amend, block, or even reject items of legislation recommended by the president. The recent ‘bail-out’ bill was rejected by the House of Representatives, with the majority of Republicans voting similarly. Yet that decision was changed when the legislation was approved by the Senate.
President does not have ‘power of the purse’, which is perhaps the most powerful tool Congress has in relation to Executive branch. All the money that the president wants to spend on his policies must be approved by Congress. Its refusal to vote for this money will significantly curtail what the president can do, be it in domestic or foreign policy.
All nominations by the president for the executive branch of the federal judicary must be approved by congress. President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers in October 2005, for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The nomination was met with opposition from both sides of the political spectrum, and on October 27, President Bush withdrew her nomination, saying Miers had asked him to do so.
Investigations by congress upon the activities of a president can ultimately lead to an impeachment by the House of Representatives. This is the ultimate check that Congress holds over the executive, with two presidents (Johnson 1868, Clinton 1998) having been impeached by a simple majority. However, it is the Senate that has the power to acquit, and on both of Clinton’s charges they did so. A President has never been found guilty after being impeached, showing signs that this is a check not working.
A check by the executive over the judiciary is that of presidential pardon. However, this has become something of a controversy in recent times. On the final day of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including Mark Pritchard, a notorious tax fugitive.
Constitution can itself be amended by two thirds majority of Congress and by three quarters of states to bring into modern times and rebut accusations of inflexibility. The 19th Amendment gave women the vote, and the 26th reducing the voting age to 18. There have only been 17 amendments since 1791, suggesting that the system is working well.
However, the judiciary has great power despite need to be confirmed. Bush had a Supreme Court entirely chosen by predecessors up until 2005. The Supreme Court has been known to also go against public opinion, as was the case with Furman v Georgia, in 1972 when it banned all death penalties. This was something that the Founding Fathers would not have intended to happen. This decision was reversed four years later.
Congress and President can get into ‘gridlock’ when the dominating party differs to each branch. This can create a ‘divided government’, which prevents necessary action being taken. Clinton’s failure to get his health reforms through in 1993 is an example of this, as is when Bush faced the Senate Democratic majority 2001 and since 2006 midterms. This might be the system not working well.
Many presidents have also accused the Senate of either rejecting or blocking their judicial nominations for partisan reasons, slowing down much of the work within the courts.
Overall, checks and balances can lead to both ineffective and effective government. Bills are scrutinised more closely, treaties checked more closely, and nominees questioned more vigorously in the conformation process. Yet, some checks and balances have proved problematic in modern times, preventing important legislation from passing, and certain powers being abused. However, the checks and balances of the Constitution have stood the test of time well, with very limited change.
How federal is the USA in reality?
Federalism: This is a political system where there is two or more levels of government, In the case of the US, a central government and a state government.
It is Federalism
• 2 Senators per state represents their state in Senate
• The powers allocated to the states include powers over civil and a good deal of criminal law (including the issue of capital punishment); school education and higher education; health, sanitation, housing and public highways.
• The size and geographical structure of USA helps keep state identity. There are racial, religious and ideological differences in different regions of America.
• The Supreme Court has made attempts to strengthen the tenth amendment.
o Eg. Printz v US 1997: Parts of Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act struck down (the act violated “the very principle of separate state sovereignty”
• Different states have varying laws on issues such as what age people can marry, drive a car or have to intend school. Laws may also vary on drugs and whether death penalty should be used.
• All elections are state based. For example each state decides how their candidate will be chosen for elections.
• There is also recently increasingly powerful state leadership, especially gubernatorial (State governers). E.g. Governors Tommy Thompson and John Kitzhaber (Wisconsin and Oregon).
• Improving structural reform of state and local governments. E.g. Sane Jose and Oakland, CA, charter reform adding power to the mayor over budget/patronage
It is Not Federalism
• There has been congressional laws that has transferred power to the centre. For example, when it passed its new drunk-driving policy, Congress also adopted rules requiring health-warning labels on alcoholic beverages. The provisions of the bill explicitly pre-empt future state legislation by requiring that ‘no statement, other than the label required by this act, can be required under state law’.
• The states have to submit to federal government restrictions and conditions to gain federal funds. This is because many states rely heavily on federal funding in policy areas, much of state spending is mandated by federal government and funds are often given with strings or conditions attached.
However it should be taken into account the changes in Federalism in US throughout history.
Dual Federalism:
From 1780s- 1920s state government exercised most political power. The Federal Government was only limited to matters concerning money, war and peace.
Co-operative federalism:
After the war street crash the federal and state governments co-operated to solve problems facing US society. The federal government’s role increased dramatically and it was the time when government began giving funds to state which allowed them to influence over policy. Also there were big governments.
New Federalism:
For the final three decades there has been new federalism where there has been an increase in grants to states. However there has also been an increasing movement on “state rights” for example Southern resistance on desegregation. There are a range of reasons for demanding decentralisation and this includes the Watergate scandal and the federal government’s inability to deal with social problems. Despite Bush being committed to returning responsibility to the states after an era of big government with the democrats, there is little evidence of so.
Federalism: This is a political system where there is two or more levels of government, In the case of the US, a central government and a state government.
It is Federalism
• 2 Senators per state represents their state in Senate
• The powers allocated to the states include powers over civil and a good deal of criminal law (including the issue of capital punishment); school education and higher education; health, sanitation, housing and public highways.
• The size and geographical structure of USA helps keep state identity. There are racial, religious and ideological differences in different regions of America.
• The Supreme Court has made attempts to strengthen the tenth amendment.
o Eg. Printz v US 1997: Parts of Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act struck down (the act violated “the very principle of separate state sovereignty”
• Different states have varying laws on issues such as what age people can marry, drive a car or have to intend school. Laws may also vary on drugs and whether death penalty should be used.
• All elections are state based. For example each state decides how their candidate will be chosen for elections.
• There is also recently increasingly powerful state leadership, especially gubernatorial (State governers). E.g. Governors Tommy Thompson and John Kitzhaber (Wisconsin and Oregon).
• Improving structural reform of state and local governments. E.g. Sane Jose and Oakland, CA, charter reform adding power to the mayor over budget/patronage
It is Not Federalism
• There has been congressional laws that has transferred power to the centre. For example, when it passed its new drunk-driving policy, Congress also adopted rules requiring health-warning labels on alcoholic beverages. The provisions of the bill explicitly pre-empt future state legislation by requiring that ‘no statement, other than the label required by this act, can be required under state law’.
• The states have to submit to federal government restrictions and conditions to gain federal funds. This is because many states rely heavily on federal funding in policy areas, much of state spending is mandated by federal government and funds are often given with strings or conditions attached.
However it should be taken into account the changes in Federalism in US throughout history.
Dual Federalism:
From 1780s- 1920s state government exercised most political power. The Federal Government was only limited to matters concerning money, war and peace.
Co-operative federalism:
After the war street crash the federal and state governments co-operated to solve problems facing US society. The federal government’s role increased dramatically and it was the time when government began giving funds to state which allowed them to influence over policy. Also there were big governments.
New Federalism:
For the final three decades there has been new federalism where there has been an increase in grants to states. However there has also been an increasing movement on “state rights” for example Southern resistance on desegregation. There are a range of reasons for demanding decentralisation and this includes the Watergate scandal and the federal government’s inability to deal with social problems. Despite Bush being committed to returning responsibility to the states after an era of big government with the democrats, there is little evidence of so.
Can someone please give advice on exam technique
Revision Voting Behaviour
Comparisons between voting in the UK and US are complicated, due to the differences between elections.
Parliament doesn’t have mid-term elections.
In the UK voters only vote for one thing – their MP, whereas in the US, voters face an astounding selection of candidates for President, Governor, House member, Senator, Mayor…etc in one go.
This obviously impacts upon voting behaviour, particularly if straight ticket voting machines are in operation. (proven that when used are more likely to produce results where the voter selects candidates from the same party – deters split ticketing)
Political culture plays a big deal in shaping voting behaviour. The system of checks and balances in the US impacts on the belief that splitting power is important – leading to many voting split-ticket style. It is an example of a culture and a system self-perpetuating each other.
In the UK the strong party system leads to different behaviour, and an all or nothing complex e.g. People don’t vote for the Liberal Democrats because they know under the UK system that the ‘Dems won’t win, however, it’s because of this mentality that the ‘Dems aren’t a viable choice in the first place. This stigmatism is also reflected by the electoral system which makes it difficult, if not impossible for a third party to have any considerable success
Short Term Factors which Influence Voting
[B]Economy: [/B
]Important in both the US and UK, but this is rather how people perceive the economy rather than the reality of it. The 2010 election will be based largely on the economy, but voters will vote according to whom they perceive will be more competent, rather than studying policies. Thus, the recession is likely to be identified with Labour’s ‘failings’ with the Tories as beneficiaries.
Incumbents tend to badly if the economy is on the ropes e.g. Carter, Bush, Callaghan. It makes sense therefore that if the economy is doing well, the incumbents tend to benefit e.g. Clinton ’96 “it’s the economy stupid!” and Blair ’01.
Labour were 21 points behind the Conservatives in economic competence in 1992, this was reversed to them being 22 points ahead in 2001. This seems to correlate with electoral fortunes.
Personality:
It’s difficult for people to get it right. Dole tried to make Clinton’s personality in 1996 and lost, whereas Bush did the same to Gore in 2000 and succeeded. Callaghan and Churchill were popular leaders but were defeated. Some are seen as electoral liabilities e.g. Thatcher and her disposal. This though, is at best a contributing factor rather than a defining one.
Comparisons between voting in the UK and US are complicated, due to the differences between elections.
Parliament doesn’t have mid-term elections.
In the UK voters only vote for one thing – their MP, whereas in the US, voters face an astounding selection of candidates for President, Governor, House member, Senator, Mayor…etc in one go.
This obviously impacts upon voting behaviour, particularly if straight ticket voting machines are in operation. (proven that when used are more likely to produce results where the voter selects candidates from the same party – deters split ticketing)
Political culture plays a big deal in shaping voting behaviour. The system of checks and balances in the US impacts on the belief that splitting power is important – leading to many voting split-ticket style. It is an example of a culture and a system self-perpetuating each other.
In the UK the strong party system leads to different behaviour, and an all or nothing complex e.g. People don’t vote for the Liberal Democrats because they know under the UK system that the ‘Dems won’t win, however, it’s because of this mentality that the ‘Dems aren’t a viable choice in the first place. This stigmatism is also reflected by the electoral system which makes it difficult, if not impossible for a third party to have any considerable success
Short Term Factors which Influence Voting
[B]Economy: [/B
]Important in both the US and UK, but this is rather how people perceive the economy rather than the reality of it. The 2010 election will be based largely on the economy, but voters will vote according to whom they perceive will be more competent, rather than studying policies. Thus, the recession is likely to be identified with Labour’s ‘failings’ with the Tories as beneficiaries.
Incumbents tend to badly if the economy is on the ropes e.g. Carter, Bush, Callaghan. It makes sense therefore that if the economy is doing well, the incumbents tend to benefit e.g. Clinton ’96 “it’s the economy stupid!” and Blair ’01.
Labour were 21 points behind the Conservatives in economic competence in 1992, this was reversed to them being 22 points ahead in 2001. This seems to correlate with electoral fortunes.
Personality:
It’s difficult for people to get it right. Dole tried to make Clinton’s personality in 1996 and lost, whereas Bush did the same to Gore in 2000 and succeeded. Callaghan and Churchill were popular leaders but were defeated. Some are seen as electoral liabilities e.g. Thatcher and her disposal. This though, is at best a contributing factor rather than a defining one.
cheers for notes..very helpful but i am ********* it, got 3 weeks, done loads of notes on the syllabus but feel like i dont know anything by memory that i could write in an exam, and iv got as politics units 1 and 2 in 2 weeks cus i flunked em last summer and i havnt even looked at that since last before the exam last year...i know you did yours last year but have you got any exam technique????plez help i gotta get AAB or im screwed!
jimmy_b3
cheers for notes..very helpful but i am ********* it, got 3 weeks, done loads of notes on the syllabus but feel like i dont know anything by memory that i could write in an exam, and iv got as politics units 1 and 2 in 2 weeks cus i flunked em last summer and i havnt even looked at that since last before the exam last year...i know you did yours last year but have you got any exam technique????plez help i gotta get AAB or im screwed!
The exam technique is fairly simple.
- An introduction outlining how you intend to answer the question and setting any limits which may affect that. A brief summary of the evaluation you're going to come to in the conclusion (definitely figure this out before you begin writing) so you can get a nice, consistent theme throughout the essay which all information will be geared around
-Middle of the essay should comprise of 3 or 4 main points of discussion. The discussion should basically follow the rather simple, PEE formula. (Make your point, provide evidence -in the form of facts/figures, and then explain what this means - a kind of mini judgment)
- Conclusion, expand on your introduction. Mention some other information which has helped you reach this judgement. Include some good analysis here and knowledge of limitations.
Throughout use lots of analysis, as it's A2 a huge chunk of the higher marks are for effective analysis. You can find a good deal of viable points and arguments which can be used for most topics in your textbook.
Moreover, make sure you use up to date examples. Particularly since Obama won the presidency, a large chunk of old information is no longer relevent. This isn't a problem as such, it allows some interesting and up to date analysis which you could score some good marks with. Keep looking on the internet and in newspapers for this kind of thing; Op-eds often include some useful discussion which you can taylor to add weight to your argument. try NYT.com, Washingpost.com or Timeonline.co.uk
will.
There's loads of examples rolling round at the moment. With Souter and Spector. I think it could be a really good exam.
Completely agree
Also a good example for pressure group questions for the comparative section or UK modules would be the Ghurka question.
Along with the rare opportunity of seeing a 2/3rds majority in the Senate
Discuss Federalism during Bush's presidency:
I got an A in this essay.
The points I used :
First within the introduction I hinted that Bush went almost the polar opposite concerning federalism during his presidency, this was due to unpredictable events during his two terms.
Point out the fact that republican presidents have been consistently federalist, and democrats not, except Clinton obv.
Obv a fair definition/outline of federalism is.
Things affecting Bush's federalism:
Sept 11th
- It was felt that the people needed the government and country to be united during a time of crisis - " a rally around the flag effect."
This allowed Bush to pass naturalisation and immigration laws that may not of been otherwise justifiable (strict tightening of the movement of immigrants into the country, seaport/airport tightened security, to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial or charge - you can also point out since this Obama has shut down Guantanamo Bay within his first 100 days in office. Oh, and the right to interrogate prisoners with harsher methods e.g. waterboarding (now considered as torturous.) A S.C case in the pipeline considering this is Al-Marri v Pucciarelli.
- The bursting of the dot com bubble - the states had bought shares in companies not yet making profit, when the businesses went downhill, the 47 billion surpluses the states had built up also did. They suddenly started cutting expenditure and taxes. Then they asked Bush to basically, be bailed out. Bush gave in, and gave them 7.7 billion, this was seen as a bit of a "cop out" by many fellow republicans, the states had caused this, why not suffer the consequences? = further dependence on federal government.
- What many consider as iiresponsible spending on the government's part.
E.g Space exploration plans, Bush wanted to put money into Moon and Mars space expedition, this was initially estimated to cost around 12 billion, it later came out that the Moon trip would cost 15 bill alone.
-The Latter Act - An act that built a bridge from a small town in Alaska to a local airport, the bridge replaced a seven minute ferry trip, at the massive cost of 233billion.
- The Highway Act - focused on improving america's roads and transporation systems - a collosal 286 billion.
The Energy Act - imposed in order to provide adequate energy for the whole of america - 12.5 billion
This was seen as unnecessary spending on a national scale, or projects not even tried out in "policy labs" - or states.
Then, the No Child Left Behind Act - Imposed national educational targets on schools, if they didn't achieve these targets they would be shut down and the schools moved elsewhere. Alot of anger concerning this as beforehand education was left predominantly in the states and local gov hands. Also, tbe budget given was not enough to pay for school's bills, they would face a bill of 15 mil for improving standards, but only given 13m. It was felt that to impose a national boundary upon education was needless. That each state required different standards and budgets and this should not be down to the federal gov.
All in all Bush seem to intend to form a federal America, but due to unpredictable events this got side tracked, and irrational spending seemed to override the aim of federalism, and therefore resulted in a very much centralised gov.
I got an A in this essay.
The points I used :
First within the introduction I hinted that Bush went almost the polar opposite concerning federalism during his presidency, this was due to unpredictable events during his two terms.
Point out the fact that republican presidents have been consistently federalist, and democrats not, except Clinton obv.
Obv a fair definition/outline of federalism is.
Things affecting Bush's federalism:
Sept 11th
- It was felt that the people needed the government and country to be united during a time of crisis - " a rally around the flag effect."
This allowed Bush to pass naturalisation and immigration laws that may not of been otherwise justifiable (strict tightening of the movement of immigrants into the country, seaport/airport tightened security, to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial or charge - you can also point out since this Obama has shut down Guantanamo Bay within his first 100 days in office. Oh, and the right to interrogate prisoners with harsher methods e.g. waterboarding (now considered as torturous.) A S.C case in the pipeline considering this is Al-Marri v Pucciarelli.
- The bursting of the dot com bubble - the states had bought shares in companies not yet making profit, when the businesses went downhill, the 47 billion surpluses the states had built up also did. They suddenly started cutting expenditure and taxes. Then they asked Bush to basically, be bailed out. Bush gave in, and gave them 7.7 billion, this was seen as a bit of a "cop out" by many fellow republicans, the states had caused this, why not suffer the consequences? = further dependence on federal government.
- What many consider as iiresponsible spending on the government's part.
E.g Space exploration plans, Bush wanted to put money into Moon and Mars space expedition, this was initially estimated to cost around 12 billion, it later came out that the Moon trip would cost 15 bill alone.
-The Latter Act - An act that built a bridge from a small town in Alaska to a local airport, the bridge replaced a seven minute ferry trip, at the massive cost of 233billion.
- The Highway Act - focused on improving america's roads and transporation systems - a collosal 286 billion.
The Energy Act - imposed in order to provide adequate energy for the whole of america - 12.5 billion
This was seen as unnecessary spending on a national scale, or projects not even tried out in "policy labs" - or states.
Then, the No Child Left Behind Act - Imposed national educational targets on schools, if they didn't achieve these targets they would be shut down and the schools moved elsewhere. Alot of anger concerning this as beforehand education was left predominantly in the states and local gov hands. Also, tbe budget given was not enough to pay for school's bills, they would face a bill of 15 mil for improving standards, but only given 13m. It was felt that to impose a national boundary upon education was needless. That each state required different standards and budgets and this should not be down to the federal gov.
All in all Bush seem to intend to form a federal America, but due to unpredictable events this got side tracked, and irrational spending seemed to override the aim of federalism, and therefore resulted in a very much centralised gov.
Points to consider when looking at affirmative action :
That it seems to go against the constitution itself, the constitution seeks to protect INDIVIDUALS and affirmative action could be seen to target African Americans as a whole group - therefore is it truly constitutional?
Goes against core American principles - capitalism - to provide equal opportunity, affirm action could be said to lean more towards socialist principles - providing equal outcomes?
Reverse racism - By opening opportunities to A.As are we effectively restricting the opportunities of white americans ? The case of Bakke V Uni of Cali - Bakke had applied to the uni numerous times but had been turned down even though he had accumilated the needed grades for the course. When investigated, this was because minority A.A students had been chosen over Bakke, sometimes with worse grades, in order to fill a quota. The S.C ruled in favour of Bakke who got his place at the uni, and a quota was no longer used, but students still get a plus point for being of a minority, so a white american and an A.A who say both hold the grades BBB will result in the A..A student in recieving the place due to his plus point. Should someone deserve an advantage just because they happened by chance to be born black?
Why should W.A today compensate for the mistakes of their ancestors. Can it be truly said that every W.A's family or themselves as individuals hold part responsibility for slavery/racism/Jim Crow? If an individual today has not experience discrimination personally, or a W.A hasn't personally inflicted racism/discrimination upon others should they be due an advantage/disadvantage? - We must remember some Black Americans ran slavery camps themselves.
Affirmative Action was believed to be a way of tackling violent behaviour, but when it was first being implements riots between 65 and 68 broke out - people have suggested that it was because many A.A's felt that affirm action was adding insult to injury, violent riots broke out against white authorities in NY (particularly Detroit).
Does it go against American's core belief of "rugged individualism"? Will affirm action disencourage motivation/determination - striving for acaedemic/career success?
That it seems to go against the constitution itself, the constitution seeks to protect INDIVIDUALS and affirmative action could be seen to target African Americans as a whole group - therefore is it truly constitutional?
Goes against core American principles - capitalism - to provide equal opportunity, affirm action could be said to lean more towards socialist principles - providing equal outcomes?
Reverse racism - By opening opportunities to A.As are we effectively restricting the opportunities of white americans ? The case of Bakke V Uni of Cali - Bakke had applied to the uni numerous times but had been turned down even though he had accumilated the needed grades for the course. When investigated, this was because minority A.A students had been chosen over Bakke, sometimes with worse grades, in order to fill a quota. The S.C ruled in favour of Bakke who got his place at the uni, and a quota was no longer used, but students still get a plus point for being of a minority, so a white american and an A.A who say both hold the grades BBB will result in the A..A student in recieving the place due to his plus point. Should someone deserve an advantage just because they happened by chance to be born black?
Why should W.A today compensate for the mistakes of their ancestors. Can it be truly said that every W.A's family or themselves as individuals hold part responsibility for slavery/racism/Jim Crow? If an individual today has not experience discrimination personally, or a W.A hasn't personally inflicted racism/discrimination upon others should they be due an advantage/disadvantage? - We must remember some Black Americans ran slavery camps themselves.
Affirmative Action was believed to be a way of tackling violent behaviour, but when it was first being implements riots between 65 and 68 broke out - people have suggested that it was because many A.A's felt that affirm action was adding insult to injury, violent riots broke out against white authorities in NY (particularly Detroit).
Does it go against American's core belief of "rugged individualism"? Will affirm action disencourage motivation/determination - striving for acaedemic/career success?
Can anyone help me with the main points to include when considering the question of " Is the Supreme Court a politcised or judicial institution?"
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- Getting an A* in A Level Maths
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- As maths
- Edexcel A2 Mathematics: Core Mathematics C4 6666 01 - 22 June 2018 [Exam Discussion]
- Study resources for edexcel IAL
- A-level urgent economics help
- Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 1 (9ET0 1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Is it possible to jump 2 grades at A2
- A-level Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- How do you get A's in Biology A levels
- A Level furthermaths
- Failed AS exams, will it affect predicted grades?
- (AQA) A Level Law Notes + Study Group 📚💼
- A-level Physics Study Group 2022-2023
- A-level English Study Group
- A-level Maths Study Group
Latest
Trending
Last reply 55 minutes ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 2 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
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th 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 55 minutes ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 2 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
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th 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]
