AP Government and Politics
10 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. The OMB director states that the reason is the decline in the cost of healthcare due to programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

2. It will decrease the size of the deficits, as less money is spent on healthcare and more can be invested in things that will allow the economy to grow.

3. The percentage of money that will be spent on defense is not typical to most Democratic ideals, which shows the president's desire to compromise. Obama would like to use more money on things that will lead to economic growth, like education.

4. A pro would be the lowering of the deficit, which is desired by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Also, I am a fan of the president's desire to improve early childhood education, as education is the best way to ensure success as a nation. A con is that Congress is not very agreeable with the president, so they may not pass some of the new ideas. 

more...
Miranda Rae Garcia's curator insight, April 28, 2014 6:53 PM

1.) We are experiencing a historic reduction in the rate of growth of healthcare costs, and that is why there is a rapid rate of decline in the deficit. 2.) The president's proposed budget would put us on the green part of his graph It would lower future deficits. 3.) Discretionary spending is the money that congress is supposed to allocate and approve where it goes. The president tries to build off of this effort while showing how he would invest in the future and things that would help the economy grow. The president tries to build off of this effort because it provides some stability for economy. One component of this initiative would be early learning, and adding slots for children around the country. 4.) Pros of this budget proposal would be helping early learning and using money to find a cure for cancer and things like that. A con would be spending all of that money and then there not being a positive outcome.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 29, 2014 8:00 PM

1. due to the rate of reduction in healthcare costs

2.  Lower deficits because of policies of health care costs will allow the economy to grow

3. it set limits allowing stability for his budget. He uses that to invest in things that could potentially allow the economy to grow. Early learning which is education would allows for new opportunities

4. Some pros are the ability for the both sides come together to decide on  the economy, unfortunately the President could invest in the wrong programs which will waste resources. 

Brooklyn Ward's curator insight, September 25, 2015 7:55 AM

1.The reason for the decline in the deficit is the lower spending by the public on healthcare.

2.By continuing to add more constraints on healthcare cost, the deficit  will continue to decrease.

3.The President is making compromises with congress (mostly republicans) by setting aside half the discretionary fund for military spending.

4. Pros: more money will be invested in two things government should be funding: schools and the military

Cons: the question of can they really close all the loopholes in the tax codes, and then there's the issue that the government funded healthcare doubled in cost this past year (even when the congressional budget office estimated it would decrease by nearly 30%) and the cost is estimated to nearly double again by 2016 reaching almost $120 billion.

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

Obama has made an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal employees in an effort to influence Congress into doing the same for all of society. A limitation is that he does not have Congressional approval and this shows that the idea is not a widely backed one in the government. Some people think he is overusing his power and should not have done this. This executive order is a rather expensive one, so people are worried about the cost. The White House has avoided any executive orders with gay rights because in the past, it has not been well received by a large part of the nation. 

more...
Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 15, 2014 2:39 PM

1.)    Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he has not been able to get the support that he needs from Congress.

2.)    What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?

However there are certain limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general such as the fact that they can be put into a trial for legality and it can create a division with congress when Obama really needs them to back him!

3.)    What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?

There is criticism that is being levied against the president’s use of executive orders such as the point that Obama needs to put forward a better effort to work with congress and to step back and review the stress he is placing on other companies financially.

4.)    What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders?

There is the policy of gay rights which The White House has chosen not to address using executive orders.

5.)    Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

The Obama administration might be hesitant to address the area because Obama does not want to lose any of the public’s support! He is hoping that the Senate will pass a bill and will be able to protect all Americans rather than just a few.

Courtney OConnor's curator insight, April 15, 2014 6:57 PM

I was absent Wednesday-Friday with no access to computer/ internet.

 

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order due to complications compromising with Congress. This executive order would prevent contractors from retaliating against employees discussing their pay as well as require the Labor Department to require contractors to provide data regarding pay based on race and gender. His limitations are that his order may be challenged and deemed unlawful by Congress. There is criticism that President Obama may be stepping out of line by not agreeing with Congress about this decision, and that he's using his power too far. Also, Federal Contractors believe that releasing this data would call for an increase in lawsuits and the creation of a two tier system. The White House has not chosen to deal with the agenda that would protect gays and lesbians working for these Federal Contractors. He might be hesitant to address this issue due to the growing support of protection of gays and lesbians in Congress as it is and further provocation to Congress would be harmful for his administration.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 17, 2014 5:40 AM

President Barack Obama chosen to put in place an executive order so he can control more of the economy by keeping federal contractors from hurting employees who would like a raise. His executive order was denied by congress. The order might be considered unlawful. Republicans know that he is using his power to much and needs to be working with congress. People know that his executive order will give a burden to companies and hurt their inflow of money. The white house has not said anything about protecting gays and lesbians working from federal contractors. The white house’s goal is to spread protection to all Americans. 

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/28 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin, Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

Gerrymandering is where districts are redistributed so one party has favor in a certain area and can maintain control and majority. The name comes from founding father Gerry, who drew a contorted district in order to get more votes. These districts are not uniform; they are often incongruous shapes that make no logical sense. The House is reapportioned every ten years when the Census takes place. A potential solution is to focus on geography and population density in drawing districts, as to maintain a level of fairness. This could potentially harm an incumbent, as the districts would not be drawn to favor them. The public opinion would be more level and accurately understood because the maps would be unbiased. And yes, they both seem to distort the way the public actually feels. 

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. It is clear that a candidate who can handle the stresses of running and that has a good track record in the past is desired. The author sort of denounces candidates who suffer from negativities in the past, and implies that they should be shunned. The article also stresses the importance of being well known by the populace. It also appears that candidates who are well funded are more desirable, as it plays a critical role in the election process. In sum, both parties are looking for the same thing–a well rounded candidate who is already widely regarded as a good person to be in office.

2. To me, Sabato kind of disregards the platforms of the candidates and focuses instead on their impressions upon the people. It is likely that Sabato chooses not to focus on the platforms as much because they are still on the fence, and can change at a moment's notice, such as John McCain's sudden change of opinion regarding offshore drilling in the 2008 election when he learned of the public opinion surrounding it. 

3. When Sabato refers to this, he is implying that the campaign process is both never over for those who are elected, and for people who want to run, it begins the second they were born. Elected officials constantly worry about their approval ratings, and if they are bad, they are unlikely to be reelected. Similarly, for someone new in the political process, anything in their past could be held against them. Also, it seems that the moment an election is over, people start campaigning for the next one in four years. A concern with this is the people in the government worrying too much about the opinion of others instead of working for the good of the people. 

4. I believe this to be an advantage. This gives the population a chance to do some research and become accustomed to the leader's ideals. However, this also gives people time to do research in a less positive way, such as digging up old secrets from the past and using them against the leader. It really goes both ways and depends on the candidate and the current situation. 

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 4, 2014 10:12 AM

1. Based on this article, what would you say that the media is looking for in an ideal candidate for 2016? Is it the same for both parties? The conservitave side is the new side that has been wanting to be used and hired for the new seat of the White House. The conservitive side is wanted for the both parties to maybe have a chance to help control the economy.

2. To what extent is Sabato focused on the issues (platform) of the candidates? What the disadvantages and advantages are for the runnign canidates for the points they they will attack and what they will focu on.

3. Sabato refers to the “permanent presidential campaign.” What does this mean, and what are the implications for government? The permanent campaign is the non stop of action being attacked. The new canidates will keep running for their own worries and ideas, not for the people.

4. Do you think that there is an advantage to being identified as an early leader in the presidential race? Why or why not? Yes, the earlier you come out, the earlier your ideas spread to the people about your campaign run.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 14, 2014 11:56 PM

The media is looking for  both a woman candidate to run for the Democraticparty and someone fresh who has not been in the spotlight. because of this they have been keeping their eye on Hilary Clinton. However for the Republican Party, the media is looking for a clear-cut candidate as they let the scandals fall as they may. Sabato is not very interested on the party platforms of candidates, but rather their popularity and faults. He is making broad assumptions of each possible candidate and listing the general pros and cons of each.Sabato describes the permanency of campaigns by acknowledging that campaigning is a continuous process. He seems to imply that it is a good thing, and it allows voters to be more informed and aware of possible candidates.It is not an advantage to be identified early as a leader in the presidential race because this puts the candidate in the media spotlight. It also creates boredom in voters as they tire of constantly seeing information on a particular candidate.           

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 10:16 PM
So far, the media seems to be looking for candidates with successful political record, is liked by the public and their party, and isn’t too harsh on their views but also isn’t too loose. These credentials seem to be the same for both parties. They as well want a candidate with a good political record and popularity vote.Sabato is less concerned with their political platforms, because they can easily be changed, and more with their political experience and records and financial capabilities.Sabato’s reference to the “permanent presidential campaign” means that candidates now are more concerned with their media coverage and appearances when campaigning themselves. The government itself has become increasingly concerned with the media and its perception of what happens in the government and with running candidates. This causes some candidates to change their political platforms to fit what they think the media will want, which has caused some of them to become less popular.I think that there is an advantage to being known as an “early leader” in the presidential race because the leaders are the ones who other candidates will form their candidacies around. Other candidates will sway their opinions and fit what they think fits to the media and what the media wants rather than what they believe. This would not be as big of a problem for early runners because they start out on top because of their political ideologies and then gain media support, not the other way around.
Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
Texas remains a Republican-leaning state because its white residents are becoming increasingly Republican and its large Hispanic population, though solidly Democratic, is less so than Hispanics nationally.

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. A party realignment would be very useful to Democrats, as Texas has long been a red state. The recent insurgence of mostly Democratic Hispanics may provide enough push to change the deep red center to a more calming blue. This relates to minority majority because Texas is becoming dominated by minorities and whites are no longer above the 51% mark, which could ultimately change the political leaning of the entire state. 

2. As with the rest of the nation, Hispanics generally lean toward the Democratic side. Meanwhile, white people tend to lean toward the Republican party. 

3. Hispanics have some of the worst voter turnouts in the nation. This means that regardless of the percentage of Hispanics that are Democratic, not all of them are registered to vote, and therefore it is unlikely that the push will be strong enough. 

4. Gallup conducted a poll with a random sampling of the population, occupying all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 50% were landline and 50% were cellular devices, so it is appropriate to infer that it reached many different income brackets. 

more...
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:22 AM
1. Democrats are looking forward that with an increase in Hispanic pop. the state may have enough Democratic votes to turn the state blue. Generally speaking, Hispanics are Democratic. As more minorities flock to America, whites are becoming a minority and may lose their typical Republican hold in Texas.<br>2. Whites are very Republican, while their Hispanic friends are mostly Democratic. In terms of the rest of the country, however, the Hispanics in Texas have more Republicans than elsewhere.
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:29 AM
3 Gallup believes that Texas will not experience political realignment, the reason being Texas Hispanics are more likely not to vote. Although they hold opinions, but their lack of hands on political participation prevents Texas from being a blue state.<br> <br>4. The poll has a 1% error because the pollers checked to see if half of the surveys over cell and the other half over landline calls and then the surveyed at random..then there is the spanish polling,
Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:15 AM

The Democrats are slowly taking over texas because the minorities in texas are growing in numbers and the majority of the minorities fully support the Democrats. Though Texas is mostly Republican,  Democrats are hoping this population change will change texas into a Democratic state.  Keeping that in mind, many Hispanics are not registering to vote and because of that the minorities aren't necessarily able to vote and represent themselves when the majority votes more than the minority. This is a prime example of how participation can change the outcome of an election. The data from this article was taken by random phone call surveys by an equal number in each group asked

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court.

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. Conservatives have consistently been favored in Roberts' court cases. The court has had numerous pre-business decisions and there has been an effort to sway liberals to go on a more conservative route. 

2. A precedent is the way that a case was ruled in the past. The precedent that has been set is that the government will be pro-business. He has definitely put a lot of limits on campaign finance reform, as well, setting a new precedent. 

3. He will meet with the liberal leaning judges in order to try and reach some agreements; more work will be done and the president will have a higher success rate with his ideas.

4. Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because the amount of liberal and conservative judges he has are equal. He is moderate.

5. There is no bias in this article because it is all factual and legitimate. There is no opinion, just presentation of fact.

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 20, 2014 8:47 PM

1. Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer. The liberals since the liberal party is the majority than the conservative in the judicial court ruling over every conservative ruling of even small case. 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent? Precedent is the previous establishment of the previous case which affects the choice of the cases in the future. The rulings have gone towards the liberal sides making rules about certain laws that liberal party congress member rule upon to make of law. 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court? The strategy that the president may use would be the media to cover the choices of the people to go to certain sides of the choices that the judicial branch makes upon the laws to be passed by the rule of four. 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why? Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because there is already a 4 to 4 ratio of the conservative and liberal which Kennedy makes the 6 to 6 judicial vote.

5.Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not? The article was written in the view of a conservative to help decrease the help many liberals receive in their vote to the upcoming laws that are against many of Obama's choices of laws that he will or will not veto against the court ruling. 

Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 22, 2014 9:46 AM

1.)  Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer.

 

            In Roberts court decisions conservatives have been favored and he has shown a large attachment to things which he feels are planting new seeds in the justices and discusses them as a new plant.

 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent?

 

          A precedent is when an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. The Roberts court has largely made rulings based on precedent which favor businesses and which choose to push forward older laws.

 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court?

 

            The President might pursue attempting to persuade the justices on issues with a more liberal view. This would help as the Roberts court takes the extra votes in order to gain their votes. This would help the President to see greater success in the court.

 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why?

            The Justice which would be considered the “swing vote” in the court would be Kennedy because he tends to vote both ways and he is typically the deciding vote.

 

5. Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not?

 

            No there is no discernible bias in the way this article was written because it presents the facts and doesn’t bring in much of an opinion while giving information on both sides instead of only one.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 24, 2014 6:14 PM

1. Conservatives have been constantly favored in Roberts’ court decisions because he is constantly persuading the court’s more liberal justices to pass different laws in the polarized system.

2. Precedent is when a court uses a previous case to evaluate the outcome of a current case. Roberts court mainly deals with this when the case involves businesses.

3. In order for the president to gain more support for Congress, he will need to gain support from the opposing political party by perhaps letting them win smaller battles and compromising.

4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" because he has voted for both the conservatives and liberals and he is unpredictable.

5. There is always bias in articles, but this article doesn't necessarily have that much. It sheds light on the views of both conservative and liberals.

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

The NRA is using their influence and e-mailing their opinions to the senators. They don't believe it is the responsibility of the surgeon general to influence others about gun control.

The NRA has an influence on votes. If the Senators disagree with the ideas of the majority, then they can lose their positions. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people in republican states to maintain their opinions without fear.

The president is responsible for the appointment.

Congress could research the effects of guns to increase the validity of their opinions and influence others. They could also make sure to change their campaign strategies in order to ensure that people trust them.

more...
luke jester's curator insight, April 11, 2014 6:14 PM

1. They  sent out a "grass roots alert" to millions of people so they would tell their senators to not vote for the President's nominee . They don't like the fact that the nominee is extremely against guns.

2. democrats may lose control of the Senate because Senators are voting differently then they normally would because of the NRA .

3. The President chooses the positions of people.

4. they could hold Obama's vote for surgeon general or take out the nomination from the position. they need balance nominees in order to have support from both parties.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 11, 2014 9:28 PM

The NRA is influencing members of congress by personally emailing the voters and trying to rally members against the Surgeon General because they don't agree with his views on gun control and many other issues. The senators reelection is at stake and if they vote with gun control, they will lose the support of the NRA. From this incident, the White House should definitely learn to choose a more fitting person to represent, one that preferably agrees with the policies of the NRA.The white house learned to approach nominations differently in order to recieve better feedback

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 14, 2014 10:38 PM
The NRA is concerned about the appointment of nominee Murthy because he is actively against guns. They are going directly to citizens addressing them about the nominee and asking their opinion and going to senate, trying to get the nominee removed. The NRA are concerned that if the nominee is appointed, the gun-bans in the nation will go up, decreasing their value.The Senate is trying to maintain democratic leadership by listening to their constituents which, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Arkansas, are opposed to gun-banning, which puts them against the nominee.The White House try to choose candidates who will help keep a mostly equal view on arguments and won’t anger any interest groups, such as the NRA, so there won’t be a lack of executive control or support.The White House should consider what is really good for the nation and what candidates are right for the job, rather than trying to please everyone. It is impossible, especially in politics, to please everyone, so they should try to think about what the candidate can offer to the executive process and what they can possibly change. The White House learned that they tend to overestimate democratic support and lean more toward their constituents than the rest of the nation.
Scooped by Justin Fogarty
Scoop.it!

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer - YouTube

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/does-your-vote-count-the-electoral-college-explained-christina-greer You vote, but then what? Discover how your i...
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. The Constitutional basis is found in Article II, Section I, Clause II, which specifies the number of electoral college members needed. It was brought about because at the time the Constitution was written, information was not really spread accurately, so a popular vote would not be too fair. However, a vote by Congress would not be either because it placed too much power in the federal government. Thus, a compromise was formed, resulting in the electoral college.

2. Candidates campaign more toward the swing states because they are the states that aren't definitively Republican or Democrat. Safe states are states that almost always go one way, such as Idaho always voting Republican. Candidates do not push as hard for these states because they're "safe". Candidates also campaign more toward states with a large population, because that results in obtaining more electoral votes. 

3. The House of Representatives is called upon to resolve the issue; they vote on it.

4. Al Gore won just over 50 percent of the popular vote, while Bush gained less than 50 percent. However, Bush won in the electoral college and was named President. Many people believed this usurped the views of the public and was not an accurate portrayal of the public interest. 

5. No, I think a more pluralistic system would work. The two party system seems antiquated and I think that runoff elections would be fine in the result of no candidate receiving a majority. With the amount of party dealignment in the nation, it makes sense to allow more than a two party system and to pay more attention to the third parties.

more...
Kate Banks's curator insight, March 20, 2014 1:38 AM

The electoral college was created because initially, taking the people's popular vote wouldn't have been too wise. The fathers of the Consitution didn't think people were smart enough to vote wisely for one, but they couldnt have just government officials vote either because they were they elite, and it wouldn't be fair to The People. With the electoral college, the people elect other people to help represent how they might vote.

Safe states are states that are always Republican or Democrat, pretty assuredly. Texas, for instance, always votes Republican. Swing states have the reputation of going either way, so the nominees for office have to concentrate on winning these states over to win the election.

If that happens, the House of Representatives takes a vote.

In 2000, although Al Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the election because of the electoral college votes. This really didn't make the nation happy, since everybody knew the majority voted for Al Gore, he just couldn't win because of the delegates. Florida even demanded an immediate recount. It didn't do the election system much justice.

It's sort of ridiculous that the Unites States is dominated by two parties, and third parties never hardly even have a chance at making a mark, much less winning an election. The world is not black and white, and I believe pluralism would help the people best decide on who they believe should run the country based on a broader view of topics.

Rescooped by Justin Fogarty from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 | AP Government and Politics | Scoop.it
More Americans today are satisfied with where the nation stands on acceptance of gays and lesbians, federal taxes, and healthcare availability than were satisfied in 2001. But Americans' satisfaction with the economy has declined.

Via Kelly Grossman
Justin Fogarty's insight:

1. The historical events obviously coincide with the findings in the polls. The first survey was given pre-9/11, when national security was not much of a pressing issue. Now, after our involvement in wars and terror, it is clear that Americans are much more concerned with the nation's security, as they should be. Also, the US is becoming a more open-minded country, with more acceptance for the LGBT community. The shifts in opinion make sense in relation to the events of the past 13 years.

2. Mostly, yes. There is an obvious difference in the amount of satisfaction regarding gun control laws between Republicans and Democrats, for Republicans are most likely fans of the more "open" laws, while Democrats would favor more restriction which isn't largely present. Also, Republicans in general usually aren't advocates of gay rights, so the recent surge of states allowing gay marriage probably is not something they enjoy seeing. However, these are merely blanket statements and of course do not apply to every person in every party.

3. Democrats would likely favor a more restrictive gun control policy, as indicated by their low percentage of satisfaction. Meanwhile, Republicans would favor a policy restricting women's rights to choose to have an abortion, as indicated by a low level of support.

4. This means that Republicans and Democrats could be in much more harmony than we believe on some issues, which would shrink the gap that appears to be present. Knowing the sampling error helps me in understanding the article more accurately, as I know that some information could be incorrect.

more...
Hannah Larson's curator insight, February 25, 2014 9:17 AM

1. The historical events of the period have greatly affected the results of this poll. 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed American approval of our standing in the world and our foreign affairs for the worse. The end of the dot com boom and the beginning of the 2008-2009 recession significantly alterered people's views of the economy. They now disapprove of the state of the economy significantly  more than in the past.

2. For the most part these results coincide with democratic and republican views. Republicans show more approval of the state of the environment and gun policy while Democrats show more approval of social policies such as the legalization of gay marriage and Social Security and Welfare programs. I found it interesting that the two parties' approval of many issues such as quality of public education and quality of medical care are almost the same. Republicans show less concern for the environment and they do not support stricter gun laws, so these approval ratings make sense. Democrats endorse more support of scoial issuessuch as gay marriage and more government sponsored programs for the people to use. Their support of gay marriage and socil securoty and welfare makes sense. I believe both parties share the same approval or dissaproval on some issues because most people are moderate but call themselves a democrat or republican. Most take a republican view on most things and a democratic on others or vice versa.

3. Democrats will more likely favor policies such as the affordable health care act and support social welfare programs.Republicans will favor policies that involve less government control such as tax cuts and less strict gun laws.

4. This means that the data taken could be a lot closer than what is seen. Issues where the ratings seperated by 8% could lead to actual results of the same approval rating. This completely changes the readers' view on data taken over energy policies and federal taxes. Some of the data is so close that when the percentage error is taken into acoount, democrats may have more approval of an issue than republicans or vice versa. This can be seen in data taken for control of crime, quality of medical care, and race relations.

Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 10, 2014 1:14 PM
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Monday, 2/24!

1. The article explains why Gallup chose a 13-year comparison. Do the historical events of this period explain the changes in public opinion? Why or why not? Yes it does since the change of ideas and problems to change first. The the shift in problems for others have shifted from governmental taxation to Gay and Lesbian rights of marriage.

2. Examine the chart comparing Democrats' and Republicans' levels of satisfaction. Do these results coincide with your expectations (based on the textbooks' depiction of American liberalism and conservatism)? Why or why not? Yes they do since the republicans have their own likes and dislikes and vice-versa, for the democrats. The changes and laws placed that are new will effect the mind shifts of the people of the certain party that would affect their future.

3. Based on these results, which public policy changes are likely to be supported by each party? The Military and terrorist defensive increased by both parties to lessen the fear of their lives. The future and safety of the country is their first priority.

4. The sampling error for this poll is +/- 4%. What does this mean, and how might it impact your interpretation of the data presented? It isn't too much of a sampling error that affects the data by the error. The 4% doesn't effect much of the side i believe in as i see the data well built in how the percentage of the both parties was taken.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:04 AM

Yes, because ever since the economic downturn and 9/11 Americans have altered their views towards the economy and has lost confidence in the government and its policies.

Yes, because Democrats seem to be more for liberalism while Republicans are concerned lean towards conservatism.

Republicans would strengthen the economy, set immigration laws, and limit health care while Democrats would set strict gun regulations and preserve the economy.

It means that there is a possibility of a small percent error. However, it has no impact on the major interpretation of each side for each topic.