Edexcel A-level Government & Politics 6GP03 3rd/6th/13th June 2019 [Exam Discussion]

Scroll to see replies

Evaluate the extent to which selecting presidential candidates is deeply flawed (30)
I believe that encompasses all areas you just mentioned.

So for that question can you talk about electoral college advantages and disadvantages, and also can you talk about incumbency?

Reply 1581

username2805430

Can we get an essay Q just on incumbency

Reply 1582

sophie.jane

For 12 markers (e.g. examine the similarities in ...) would you just talk about the similarities? or would you include a counter point?

Reply 1583

Wellnowhe

The question around selecting presidential candidates are is the process to party convention so primaries and invisible primaries in particular

I saw it as a test of charisma and ability to potentially be head of state through the media

A test of planning and campaigning (financing)

There’s a bias for existing presidents to retain those who’ve had experience

However it doesn’t properly test presidential qualities unlike the smoke filled rooms

Primaies do not properly represent public opinion (caucuses tend to be more ideological) and thus may lead to unpopular candidates nationally

The media may poorly scrutinise candidates in the attempt for views by encouraging adversary and sound bites

Reply 1584

Wellnowhe

Yes

Original post by nish2910

Can we get an essay Q just on incumbency

Reply 1585

username4006618

Original post by nish2910

Can we get an essay Q just on incumbency

Yeah

Evaluate the extent to which the incumbency is a determining factor in presidential elections.

Reply 1586

Wellnowhe

It can also imply to congressional elections

Reply 1587

username2805430

So in this you just talk about incumbency not the other factors ?

Original post by anonymousamk

Yeah

Evaluate the extent to which the incumbency is a determining factor in presidential elections.

I haven’t learnt congressional, no time

Reply 1588

username2805430

No evaluation only AO1 and AO2

Original post by sophie.jane

For 12 markers (e.g. examine the similarities in ...) would you just talk about the similarities? or would you include a counter point?

Reply 1589

rarf

Federalism, Congress or a Constitution better come up. I've spent a dummy amount of time on them lol

Reply 1590

lparker225

what can be said about judicial independence ? US

Reply 1591

JCIM

I have written a mock 12 marker. How would you rate the structure. How many marks would you give this?

Analyse the differences between UK and US campaign and party finance
[12 marks]

One structural difference between UK and US campaign and party finance laws regards spending regulation; in the UK laws are more designed to limit spending whereas in the US constitutional law is deemed to protect spending. In the USA, the right to free speech is a fundamental right which is articulated in the constitution. In the USA, campaign spending is seen as an extension of one’s speech and any regulations on spending are seen as unconstitutional – this is exemplified by the Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) decision to roll back spending regulations. In the UK, however, it is much different; there is regulated spending, for example, the Electoral Commission enforces campaign spending limits of £30,000 per constituency which if broken can lead to fines such as the Conservatives being fined £70,00 in 2017.

Another structural difference regards contribution limits; in the USA the legal framework is tougher in direct politics contributions ('hard money') whereas in the UK there is little in terms of contribution regulation. In the US, campaign finance is regulated almost entirely through the use contribution limits e.g. an individual may give a maximum of $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate. Whilst in the UK there are virtually no contribution limits whatsoever. Large direct donations like Sir Michael Hintze’s £1.5 million to the Conservative Party in Q1 of 2014 are perfectly legal and this contrasts to the USA where in order for private individuals to make large contributions they must spend on behalf of a candidate (using 'soft money') rather than contribute directly.

One cultural difference concerns the level of involvement private business and trade unions have in funding political parties. In the UK, trade union and business involvement is direct. Businesses and trade unions will give money directly to a party e.g. Unite the union gave the Labour Party over £1.5 million in the first quarter of 2014. Parties in the UK are very much reliant on this money directly from outside organisations. On the other hand, in the US, due to contribution limits, business and trade unions do not give large sums of money directly to political parties. Instead they set up independent political action committees (PACs) which spend money canvassing for a preferred candidate e.g. in 2016 Paloma Partners, a US hedge fund donated $21.1 million to a pro-Hilary super PAC (PUA).

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 1592

rarf

Original post by JCIM

I have written a mock 12 marker. How would you rate the structure. How many marks would you give this?

Analyse the differences between UK and US campaign and party finance
[12 marks]

One structural difference between UK and US campaign and party finance laws regards spending regulation; in the UK laws are more designed to limit spending whereas in the US constitutional law is deemed to protect spending. In the USA, the right to free speech is a fundamental right which is articulated in the constitution. In the USA, campaign spending is seen as an extension of one’s speech and any regulations on spending are seen as unconstitutional – this is exemplified by the Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) decision to roll back spending regulations. In the UK, however, it is much different; there is regulated spending, for example, the Electoral Commission enforces campaign spending limits of £30,000 per constituency which if broken can lead to fines such as the Conservatives being fined £70,00 in .

Another structural difference regards contribution limits; in the USA the legal framework is tougher in direct politics contributions ('hard money') whereas in the UK there is little in terms of contribution regulation. In the US, campaign finance is regulated almost entirely through the use contribution limits e.g. an individual may give a maximum of $2,700 per election to a Federal candidate. Whilst in the UK there are virtually no contribution limits whatsoever. Large direct donations like Sir Michael Hintze’s £1.5 million to the Conservative Party in Q1 of 2014 are perfectly legal and this contrasts to the USA where in order for private individuals to make large contributions they must spend on behalf of a candidate (using 'soft money') rather than contribute directly.

One cultural difference concerns the level of involvement private business and trade unions have in funding political parties. In the UK, trade union and business involvement is direct. Businesses and trade unions will give money directly to a party e.g. Unite the union gave the Labour Party over £1.5 million in the first quarter of 2014. Parties in the UK are very much reliant on this money directly from outside organisations. On the other hand, in the US, due to contribution limits, business and trade unions do not give large sums of money directly to political parties. Instead they set up independent political action committees (PACs) which spend money canvassing for a preferred candidate e.g. in 2016 Paloma Partners, a US hedge fund donated $21.1 million to a pro-Hilary super PAC (PUA).

Im gonna revise this quick lol. really good answer I thought and the structure is spot on, loads of examples too. Id say this is probably 10/12, maybe 11/12 :smile:

Reply 1593

JCIM

That’s good to hear :smile:

Original post by rarf

Im gonna revise this quick lol. really good answer I thought and the structure is spot on, loads of examples too. Id say this is probably 10/12, maybe 11/12 :smile:

Reply 1594

CyannF

(Original post by brb1234)for anyone doing the global paper - do we have to include thinkers in the comparative theories essay?

I have never had to previously - so I don't think so, but obviously is good to, as well as core ones like Hobbes. Although the whole question could be on a thinker.