Jeff Crespo's BHS APUG
2 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Jeff Crespo
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...
Jeff Crespo's insight:

1. The purpose of the electoral college is  to represent states by their population for the purpose of voting in the national election. It is fair for both small and large states, for large because of their large population and small because their electoral votes could be critical in deciding a close election. 

2. The common strategy to win 270 electoral votes is to focus on the states with a large population. Safe states traditionally vote for one party and are considered safe to count as won, while swing states are states that can vote either way and where most of the campaigning takes place.

3. The house of representatives choses between the top three candidates.

4. Gore won a majority of the popular vote, but Bush won the presidency because he won the majority of electoral college votes.

5. Yes, since the electoral college now generally votes the way their state population votes that's fair, and smaller states still play an important role because most of the larger states usually vote the way of one party, e.g. California blue and Texas red. 

 

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jeff Crespo 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 | Jeff Crespo's BHS APUG | 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
Jeff Crespo's insight:

1. Yes, the article expressly states that certain events, like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Bush tax cuts and the Affordable Care Act have affected Americans views on foreign policy, the federal tax rate and the amount and quality of healthcare.

2. Yes, the chart shows that more liberals are satisfied with things like the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the nation and gains in healthcare. Conservatives tend to be more traditional about marriage and do not want government involved in the private sector, e.g. healthcare. 

3. Liberals are going to want to see an expansion of social rights, such as more lenient policies on immigration, and want government to become more active in regulating things like the buying and selling of guns. Conservatives are going to push for tougher policies on social issues, like immigration or equality of marriage, and want government to be more hands off in areas like healthcare.

4. Plus or minus four points isn't too large of a sampling error, or so I believe at least. Also these numbers seem to mirror the opinions of both parties fairly accurately so I would still believe the information presented. 

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.

Rescooped by Jeff Crespo 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 | Jeff Crespo's BHS APUG | Scoop.it

Via Kelly Grossman
Jeff Crespo's insight:

1. The media is looking for different things in each party. For the Democrats, the media is looking for a candidate who's going to make history (e.g. like being the first female president). Basically, they're looking for Hillary Clinton. For the Republicans, the media is looking for someone fresh and new, but they also enjoy candidates with a rich history of scandals, like Rick Perry (three branches of government) and Chris Christie (Bridgegate 2014).

2. Sabato is not as interested in the ideas or beliefs of the candidates as he is in the actual electoral race. He briefly talks about the beliefs of each candidate in their description, but only to show how those beliefs will affect their chances of being elected.

3.  Sabato is basically saying that elections take forever. He believes this is a good thing though, because it gives voters more time to become familiar with a candidate and more informed about their stances on different issues.

4. It is definitely not a good thing to be the early leader in a race. People get bored easily, and if that candidate is all they've been hearing about for the past 6 months then people are going to stop listening. Also, frontrunners have all the attention of the media focused on them, which often leads to closeted skeletons being uncovered (e.g. Anthony Weiner and Rick Perry).

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.