PSCI 130 Midterm Flashcards
1 b. Explain why using plurality or majority rule to elect office holders would make broad based support necessary to win office.
(Thus) using plurality or majority rule to elect office holders would make broad based support necessary to win office because of their winner-take-all systems.
(Given) plurality means the candidate with the most votes wins (not necessarily 50%)
(Given) majority rule means need 50% of the votes, run-off election if not.
(Given) both of these systems are winner-take-all, as opposed to a proportional system
(How 1) winner take all systems lead to increased party importance
(For ex) a party helps to ensure you can get this majority because you won’t run against people with similar ideas.
(How 2) winner take all systems lead to broad based support being necessary
(For example) you need more votes than the opponent, can’t rely on being represented proportionally, need to get a wide range of support.
1 a. Provide an argument for how someone could deride parties on one level while also working to build up the party system in the US
(Thus) someone could deride parties on one level while also working to build up the party system because while the party system is not ideal, it’s necessary for politicians to win elections.
(given) Madison wrote Fed 10–> anti-parties because faction is bad, as they’re only worried about the interests of those in their group.
(Given) Madison was a founder of the Democratic-Republican party
(How 1) the party system is not ideal
(For example) Madison was ratifying the constitution–> he wants what is ideal. So, he bashes the party system when writing Fed 10. Faction is bad, as they’re only worried about interests of those in the party, not the overall people. When Madison did this, he had different priorities at the front, as he’s trying to form the ideal system, not win an election.
(Therefore) someone could deride parties on 1 level
(How 2) parties are necessary to win
(For example) parties organize support and gather a group of people necessary to get you elected. Also, prevents two candidates with similar views from running, splitting the vote, and allowing a third candidate to win.
Madison is running for president, he needs the support. So he builds up the party system.
(Therefore) same person could deride and build up party system.
1 c. Identify a change in the political structure that occurred prior to 1950 that contributed to the weakening of parties. Make sure to justify why this change weakened parties.
(Thus) progressive reforms prior to 1950 weakened parties because citizens took a lot of power away from the parties.
(Given) pofewssive reforms occurred during the first half of the 20th century.
(How 1) effect 1: citizens vote directly on legislature.
(For example) this bypasses the state legislature. Reduces corruption and makes boss rule harder–> limits their power in making legislation, weakening parties.
(Therefore) weakens parties because less able to hold officeholders accountable, more in the hands of the people
(How 2) effect 2: more primary elections are decided by the people
(For example) because of these progressive reforms, increasingly people get to vote for who the party nominates rather than the dnc or rnc deciding. This takes power away from the party, as they no longer have sole (some states still were decided by party) power to nominate the president.
1 d. Identify a change in the political structure after 1950 that contributed to the strengthening of parties. Make sure to justify why this change strengthened parties.
(Thus) parties have strengthened since 1950 because issue activists have taken control of the parties, resulting in increased importance to specific partisan issues.
(Given) after 1950, parties held together by ideology, not patronage.
(How 1) Specific issues become more partisan, driving parties apart.
(For example) rather than forming your own opinions about issues, parties formed party wide opinions around a wide variety of issues not previously seen, including abortion, taxes, and race.
(Why 1) this strengthened parties because as they became more polarized, more people couldn’t vote across party lines and voted with their party, increasing their importance and strength.
2 a. Define delegate, trustee, and party trustee representation. Draw on an example from ch. 8 of Gucci gulch to explain why it is so difficult to empirically assess which form of representation is most common by members of congress.
(Given) a delegate is someone who acts to please his/her constituents.
(Given) a party trustee is someone who acts to please his/her party leaders.
(Given) a trustee is someone who acts based on their own beliefs.
(Thus) following Bob Packwood in chapter 8 of a Gucci Gulch, we see that the constant fluctuations in congress explain why it is so difficult to empirically assess which form of representation is most common
(How 1) Bob Packwood
(For example) prior to leading the tax overhaul, the chapter follows around Senator Packwood.
1. Trustee–> receives a record amount of donations from special interest groups (I count this as trustee because this is his own interests)
2. Party-trustee –> had been opposing President Reagan, but he is up for re election and realizes he needs Reagan’s support to win. So, he starts acting as party trustee, gaining republican support.
3. Delegate–> changes his mind, backs away from interest groups, fights for timber tax benefits as his Oregon constituents are big in the timber industry.
(Therefore) there are many competing interests, and they all change, as packwoods priorities themselves change. Since he has so many fluctuations, it is hard to empirically assess which form is most common.
Identify Olsen’s 3 features (besides coercion) of interests that make them more likely to form groups. Provide an example.
(Thus) the other three distinct features of interests that make them more likely to be able to form into an interest group are the number of interests, the per capita degree of common benefit, and selective incentives.
(How 1) number of interests. It is easier to organize a smaller number of people as there are less conflicts and distractions.
(For example) senate subcommittees have few members, making them more effective.
(How 2) per capital degree of common benefit. It is easier to organize people who have a lot to gain or lose in common
(For example) interest group formed to try to keep the loophole in Connecticut that saves hedge funds a lot of tax money. They really care and have a lot in common to lose. So, the interest group forms. Lot of per capita common loss from removing the loophole.
(How 3) selective incentives. Can a group provide benefits to those who join that help offset the costs from joining the group?
(For example) HSLDA per x–> group changing laws for homeschooling. Joining the group results in discounts from vendors. These discounts can pay for membership.
- C. Define what is meant by prisoners dilema and use it to explain why someone may prefer to be coerced to join a group, like a union, even though they would not join the union if given a choice.
(Thus) Someone may prefer to be coerced to join a group because this ensures that the person gets the benefits from the other people joining.
(How 1) a prisoners dilemma is a situation in which your decision of whether or not it is in your best interest to join a group is impacted by someone else’s decision to join.
(For example) it benefits society more if you and others join. If everyone is coerced into joining, there is the greatest societal benefit.
(How 2) I’d only receive the benefits from joining if everyone else joins. If I’m not sure everyone else will join, I probably won’t join, as I’ll just hope everyone else joins and free ride. But if everyone is coerced into joining, I am then guaranteed to receive the benefits from joining, and it will benefit me.
- D. Explain how Olsens work changed our understanding of pluralism. To what extent does Gilens argument support or not support Olsen?
(Thus) Gilens’ findings partially support Olsen’s theory but also partially do not.
(Given) before Olsen, the prevailing view of policy making was pluralism. Pluralism means that policies are combinations of the preferences of the groups that lobby for it, making interest groups important.
(Given) Olsen agrees, but he says the group needs to exist in the first place. Not all groups are equally likely to form. Need to be able to overcome the collective action problem. He thinks people with more money are more likely to form these interest groups.
(How 1) don’t support
(For example) Olsen said that rich people are more likely to form interest groups. Gilens, however, finds that group membership varies depending on what type of group it is.
Mass membership groups (Christian Coalition) and union groups are for lower and middle income Americans.
(Therefore) this doesn’t support Olsen, as non wealthy people are forming groups.
(How 2) support.
(For example) business groups are mostly in opposition to poor interests and in favor of the rich. This is the most powerful type of group.
Supports Olsen’s idea with the importance of rich interest groups and their stronger likelihood of being formed.
- A. Detail the policy that section 5 (c) of Arizonas SB 1070 attempted to establish. Highlight the const language the SC used to justify why the law was unconstitutional.
(Thus) the Supreme Court ruled section 5(c) unconstitional because it violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
(Given) section 5(c) makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job without proper immigration papers.
(Given) there already was a federal system for handling illegal immigrations, making it illegal for employers to hire such aliens, but the aliens were purposely not criminally charged.
(How 1) the supremacy clause says that the federal law is the supreme law of the land and that congress has the power to preempt state law.
(For example) even though Arizona argued that the law didn’t directly conflict its federal law, the court ruled that Congress made a “deliberate choice” to not criminalize what Arizona wants to make a crime.
(For example) when state and federal law contradict, by the supremacy clause, the states cannot override federal law.
(Therefore) congress preempt this law. Congress already had a comprehensive system to deal with illegal employment, so by the supremacy clause, this law is unconstitutional.
- B. One way in which the national government came to have more power over time was because of changes to the Const (amendments). Identify the change to the Const that I think was one of the most consequential in affecting how power is divided between state and national governments over time, making sure to justify why I think it was one of the most consequential changes.
(Thus) the 17th amendment shifted a lot of power toward the national government, making it one of the most consequential amendments influencing the division of power between states and the national government because states were no longer directly represented in congress.
(Given) the 17th amendment made it so people elected their senators instead of them being appointed by the state legislature.
(How 1) instead of essentially working for the state governments, this amendment made it so senators worked for the people instead.
(For example) instead of states having a direct voice in the federal government and budgeting process, states resort to only lobbying. Senators look out for state interests still, but they have many other interests too, and the states can’t control them. This shifts power toward national government.
(How 2) this was one of the most consequential amendments because the states lose their power to directly appoint someone to make national legislation. Prior to this, states had more power, as they appointed someone directly to the national legislative committee who can look out for their interests now. While senators are still tied to the state, more tied to the people and their own interests rather than the state government itself. States lose a lot of power in this, as they can no longer be at the table nationally.
3c. Identify a change from a court case that was one of the most consequential in affecting how power is divided between states and national governments. Make sure to justify why it was one of the most consequential changes.
(Thus) the Arizona v United States (2012) ruling was one of the most consequential in shifting power toward the national government because it ruled that the federal government has power over the states whenever they conflict legislatively. It was also consequential in allowing the feeeral government to regulate and enforce all immigration laws.
(Given) Arizona tried to make tougher immigration laws, but the federal government challenged this, claiming they have their own national immigration policy.
(Given) the court ruled that the federal government had const authority on immigration policy by the supremacy clause.
(Given) this ruling ruled that the federal law supersedes state law when 1. Power is specifically given to federal government by the const, 2. When the federal interest in an area is so strong that the federal system won’t allow the states to act on the same subject, and 3. When there is conflict in federal and state laws.
(How 1) this is important because the federal government gains a lot of power.
(For example) whenever there is a legislative conflict, the federal government wins. State governments can’t even remotely infringe on federal government, as long as a similar law is in existence on the topic.
(How 2) gaining power to decide immigration policies.
(For example) With President Trump today making immigration policy more important, liberal states can’t challenge him with legislature.
- D. Explain how grants-in-aid have been instrumental in devolving power from the national government to state governments. What policy area has been particularly influenced by the increased use of these grants?
(Thus) grants-in-aid have been instrumental in devolving power from federal governments to state governments as they provide the funding for a large portion of states budgets. Health care has been parircularly influenced by the increased use of these grants.
(Given) grants in aid are grants given by the national government to state governments to fund projects at a local level.
(How 1) massive increase in these grants.
(For example) 1/3 state revenue is from federal aid in 2013, compared to less than 2% in 1927.
(For example) this big increase in federal aid has resulted in state governments being able to spend more money. There still are restrictions, as categorical grants are given to specific projects and block grants often have conditions attached to them.
(Therefore) they have been influential as they represent such a large a portion of states budgets.
(How 2) health care has been particularly influenced by the increased use of these grants.
(For example) health care accounted for 55% of the grants, transportation and income security are way down from the 1960s.
- A. Define the concept of Tiebout sorting. How could Tiebout sorting cause people with a minority viewpoint or characteristic to be better politically represented than they otherwise would have been?
(Given) Tiebout sorting is people moving based on the public goods available in a given place. For example, if you have kids and want to live in a place with good schools, you’d move to a town with good schools. And conversely, if you live in the town with the good schools and don’t care about them, you’d move elsewhere.
(Thus) Tiebout sorting allows for people with minority viewpoints or characteristic to be better politically represented than they otherwise would have been because Tiebout sorting allows for people with the minority viewpoint to move to the same place and become the majority in the place.
(How 1) instead of being the minority in a few different towns, people who care about the issue from the minority point of view can move to the same town and become the majority. Then they can elect a local politician to represent them and share their views, allowing them to be better represented.
- B. 3 specific characteristics that made Brown initially so toothless. Justify why I highlighted these characteristics
(Given) Brown v Board of Education rules that separate but equal in education is unconstitutional
(Thus) it’s implementation, rationale, and unclear vision for what non-separate schools would look like led to this decision initially being so toothless.
(How 1) implementation.
(For example) the SC implemented this ruling by giving local federal district courts the power to approve or disapprove local deseg plans. This was meant to be done with all deliberate speed. However it was done very slowly as the local courts didn’t want to implement the ruling. Schools weren’t really integrated until the late 60s/early 70s.
(For example) this is important because a ruling can only make a difference if it actually is implemented.
(How 2) the rationale.
(For example) while the ruling could have said the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment makes the constitution and state laws color blind or that the 14th Amendment was meant to ban segregated schools, it didn’t. Instead, it relied on social science studies saying that segregated education harmed black kids.
(For example) this made the ruling harder to legally defend and made it have even less support. Since it had such low favorability, adopting this change was very hard to do. With non const rationale, it was even worse.
(How 3) unclear vision for what non-separate schools would look like
(For example) there was ambiguity between adapting desegregated (blacks and whites were free to attend if they chose) or integrated (one that blacks and whites attended whether they wanted to or not) schools. In the north, the separate schools were a result of de-facto segregation, not lawful segregation. People didn’t want the inconvenience of busing, and because of this and the unclear vision for what would happen, it was hard to implement
Without the clear plan, the ruling was toothless, as you can’t adequately change something without knowing what you will change it to.
- C. 2 differences that caused Obergefell to be successful while Brown was not.
(Given) Obergefell led gay marriage to be legal in every state.
(Thus) it was successful, while brown was not, because of its successful implementation and clear vision for what the ruling would entail.
(How 1) easier to implement w changing times
(For example) rather than relying on resistant local authorities to enforce the ruling, Obergefell relied on federalism and law. The federal law is supreme according to the supremely clause of the Const (especially after Arizona v United States in 2012), and the states must comply, or they won’t get funding. With the threat of pulling federal funding, the states had to implement this. This wasn’t the case back with Brown because it was when federalism wasn’t as important and the funding from the national to states wasn’t as important. Since it was implemented well, easier to be effective.
(How 2) clear vision for ruling.
(For example) there wasn’t a debate about how this would be implemented. It was clear the ruling would allow for gay marriage to exist and the states must comply, or funding would be cut. With the clear vision, implementation was easier.
