AP US GOPO
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Kelly Grossman
Hannah Larson's insight:

1. We are experiencing historical reduction in the rate of growth of health care cost. Because healthcare organizations such as medicare and medicaid are such a large part of the government budget we can shrink the deficit by constraining the rate of growth of health care.

2. The presidents budget proposes it would consistently reduce the percentage of GDP of the defect to 1.6%.

3. Using the 30% discretionary spending the president plans to invest in initiatives that will create job growth to increase economical growth. He plans to invest in early education, research, manufacturing, and apprenticeships. For example the budget includes 650 grants going towards research in the hopes to expand the private sector and increase job opportunity. 

4. I agree with the investment in education and research because the experience and knowledge gained will not only create more jobs but also expand our economy and help us compete with other countries globally. I think his proposal for promise zones is a very risky investment that might fall through because of the magnitude of poverty in some areas.

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 Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Hannah Larson's insight:

1.       President Obama is enacting executive order because of his difficulties in coming to a compromise with congress. The two executive orders will requirebarring federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other and also require the Labor Department to adopt rules requiring federal contractors to provide compensation data based on sex and race.

2.       Limitations on Obama’s power of executive order includebeing challenged and deemed unlawful by federal courts. Executive Order cannot simply defy Congress’s intent.

3.       Republicans say Obama’s use of executive order is overstepping his power and he should do more to work with Congress. Critics also say this legislation puts an undue burden on companies and increases their cost.

4.       Federal Contractors believe additional compensation data could be used to fuel lawsuits and creates a two-tiered system in which rules apply to federal contractors but not to other employees.

5.       The White House is not using executive order to create an anti-discrimination executive order that would protect gays and lesbians working for federal contractors.

6.       The Obama administration believes that legislation will be passed in Congress soon that will create anti-discrimination legislation that will protect gays and lesbians working for federal contractors, so in order to prevent redundancy and to extend this right to all Americans, he is not passing this as an executive order.

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 Hannah Larson 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
Hannah Larson's insight:
1.Gerrymandering is the process of legislators to redraw congressional districts in order to give a certain party more power and security or redrawing maps to find friendly voters. The idea of gerrymandering was created by Elbridge Gerry in 1812.2.They are drawn in very odd shapes such as spilled coffee, a flexing man, ear muffs, and a broken- winged pterodactyl. The shapes are unorganized and haphazard. 3.House seats are reapportioned every ten years after the census is taken.4.Mathematicians have proposed organizing electoral maps by creating an algorithm that separates the districts evenly by population and geography, taking the politics out of it.5.Gerrymandering can favor an incumbent because it has set up a system where politicians are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. This is demonstrated by the fact that congress has an average approval rating of 15% but 90% of congressman were reelected in 2012.6.The control of the house became Republican whenRepublicans won the majority of state houses in 2010. Because of this, they redrew the maps. Nationwide democrats running for congress in 2012 got 1.3 million more votes, but there were 33 more republicans sent to congress than democrats.
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 Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Kelly Grossman
Hannah Larson's insight:

1.The media encourages a unique personality for candidates of both parties as to make them memorable. It also significantly takes into consideration candidates’ past scandals and lessens their likelihood of election if involved in a scandal. The media might also take into consideration how steadfast a candidate is to its party’s ideals. The media might expect different things from different parties because of their different platforms and strategical stance going into the election.

 

2.Sabato is mostly concerned with how the candidate’s stance responds to the party stance. His data deals with how easily or rigidly a candidate’s platform aligns with party beliefs.

 

3.The permanent presidential campaign refers to the never-ending cycle of elections and reelections taking place in government. This means the government in constantly changing, shifting, and adapting to new political cultures.

 

4. I believe there is an advantage to being called as a candidate early because one would have more time to distribute ideas and future policy to the people. People would be more comfortable with that person come election day as opposed to a representative the people barely know and barely have enough time to now.

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 Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | 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
Hannah Larson's insight:

1. Democrats are hoping for a realignment in Texas so that the party can make a run for the governor's seat. The minority majority holds more power in the elections since it is greater in number than the traditional white majority. Since most Hispanics in Texas are Democrats, the monirity majority has a powerful chance of turning the state blue. Since the combined minority has become the majority, Democrats hope for a more accurate representation of the people with a democrat in office.

2. Almost half of Hispanics in Texas lean Democratic but the GOP is making meaningful gains with Hispanics, moreso than any other state. Despite Hispanics' political power in the minority majority, only nineteen percent are registered to vote. The white demographic contains the highest percentage of political participation and is largely republican.

3. Despite most Hispanics affiliation with the democratic party, Hispanics political participation percentage is very low. Because of this Gallup suggests there will not be a political realignment of Texas in the near future. This example illustrates the fact that without a good percentage of political participation, party affiliations within a minority will not have great impact.

4. The poll was taken by phone calls for a sample of over 100,000 people randomly all over the country, which is significantly greater than the necessary value of 1,500.

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 Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | 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
Hannah Larson's insight:
Large corporations have been consistently favored in the court. The court has taken a more conservative approach to laws by being the “most pro-business court” the country has seen lately.The Roberts court has more often overturned precedent. Some instances where the Roberts Court has followed precedent include not overturning affirmative action, giving Congress another chance at altering the Voting Rights Act, and not finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.Since the Court lately has not ruled in favor of Obama, he may have to take extra strides to work with Supreme Court jurisdiction.

 

4. Justice Kennedy is considered the swing vote. Though he was appointed by a republican his ideology is not one way or the other, making him a swing vote decider of 4-5 voting disagreements.

 

5. There is discernable bias as a result of demonstrating how the Roberts court leans toward a more conservative vote.

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 Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | 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
Hannah Larson's insight:
The NRA is influencing this appointment by directly contacting its members and asking them to contact their senators to agree to not support this appointment. Because Dr. Murthy believes in stricter gun laws and in favor of gun control, in opposition to the NRAs stance, the interest group is working through its members to keep this presidential appointment from going through. The NRAs specific concerns lie in the fact that Dr. Murthy believes all automatic weapons should be banned, there should be a limit on ammunition sales, and restrictions on how guns van be purchased and who can own them. This is opposite of the NRAs agenda.For senators, the concern lies in obeying the will of the constituents or the will of the party. For some senators this is easy, but the greatest concern lies in the Democratic senators that represent a state that does not favor gun control, a staple in the view of the Democratic Party.The President nominated Dr. Murthy as Chief of Surgery while the Senate votes to approve or disapprove this appointment.The white house is recalibrating its plan of action after this nominee’s failure. They include working with Democratic leaders to gain more support, allowing Murthy to withdraw, or delaying the vote. The white house tends to overestimate democratic support in these matters.

 

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 Hannah Larson
Scoop.it!

The Electoral College Scoop Assignment.pptx - Google Drive

Hannah Larson's insight:
The framers of the constitution chose the Electoral College for choosing the president because they did not want to leave the task up to the Congress. They thought this would give the legislative branch too much power. At the same time, the framers did not want the president chosen directly by the people because they did not fully trust their decision making. Their solution was to have a system where the people voted for electors who were educated elite and represented the population proportionately that could vote for the president. This would also give smaller states more influence instead of being overpowered by the influence of the larger states.Most candidate will go for the large states with the most electors because it is easier to get a few large states to reach 270 instead of many small states to reach the same majority. Swing states are states that vary in which party they go with from year to year. Swing states such as Ohio and Florida have not consistently gone with one party or the other but instead have alternated from year to year. This could potentially change the outcome of an election for a candidate especially considering the size of a state like Florida and the amount of electors it has. A safe state is one that will almost always vote a certain way such as Texas. Since Teas historically goes Republican, a democratic candidate might not want to spend large amounts of energy and resources trying to win Texas but instead put their efforts elsewhere.If there is no clear majority in the Electoral College when choosing a president, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Each state gets one vote. For large states like Texas and California, this can be difficult because they have 38 and 55 electors respectively. But this system gives much more influence to small states with less electors.The 2000 election made many people question if the Electoral College undermines the true views of the people since the popular vote did not agree with the Electoral College. It made the people wonder of the system takes power away from the people and gives it to the government.At first I was one hundred percent dissatisfied with the Electoral College system because I thought it undermined the people’s views and it was too complicated. After learning more about it I see how the system upholds a two party system, gives smaller states a little more influence, and shows a clear majority winner, which would actually make things less complicated. I still see many flaws with the system when the popular vote does not agree with the electoral vote, but I see some value to the system now.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Hannah Larson 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 US GOPO | 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
Hannah Larson's insight:

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.

more...
Grayson Hunt's curator insight, February 24, 2014 9:41 PM

The increase in military satisfaction and the decrease in world affairs satisfaction reflect the Afghanistan war that many people are now willing to end. The difference in Democratic and Republican satisfactions on certain views reflect their conservative and liberal views because more Democrats are passing the laws they see as necessary so they are more satisfied than Republicans who have less of their laws passed. Both parties are on fairly similar levels of satisfaction with public affairs like education and poverty because they both accept that are many flaws in those areas. The +-4 percentage difference is actually quite a large error due to the many small percentage changes and could make truths less or more serious than fact.

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.