History exam 3

a political system in which power is divided between the central and regional units

Federalism

FEDERAL SYSTEM EXAMPLES

GERMANY CANADA MEXICO AUSTRALIA SWITZERLAND

the transfer of powers and responsibilities from the federal government to the states

Devolution

Texas Politics - In Texas, Republican John McCain easily bested his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, 55.5 percent to 43.8 percent; McCain won in all but 28 of the state's 254 counties. Republican Mit Romney did even better against Obama in 2012 by a margin of 57.2 to 41.4 percent; Romney won in all but 26 of the state's 254 counties. Republicans have the governorship, both Senator seats, and 24 of 36 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. What this information should convey to y'all is that, since the early 1990s, Texas has transformed from a Blue (Democratic) to a Red (Republican) state. The Party System - Except for the election of a small number of Libertarian candidates at the local level, minor party candidates have had little success in Texas. Since the 2004 election, every member of the Texas Legislature and every member of the congressional delegation from Texas were either Republicans or Democrats. Texas Party Organization - When we talk about party organization in Texas, there are two structures: temporary party organization and permanent party organization. The temporary party organization of each party assembles for a few hours or days in general election years to allow rank-and-file party supporters a chance to participate in the party's decision-making process. Citizens who voted in the primary election are eligible to participate in the precinct convention of the party in whose primary they voted. The main business of precinct conventions is to elect delegates to the county or state senatorial district conventions. The number of delegates an election precinct may send to the county or district convention depends on the size of the vote in that precinct for the party's candidate in the last governor's election The main business of the county or district convention is to select delegates to the state convention. The number of delegates each county or district convention sends to the state convention depends on the size of the vote for the party's candidate in the last governor's election in the county or district. The Republican and Democratic parties hold their state conventions in June. State conventions certify party nominees for the fall general election, adopt a state party platform (which is a statement of party principles and issue positions), elect the state party chairperson and vice chairperson, choose members of the state executive committee, and select individuals to serve on the national party executive committee. In presidential election years, the state party convention selects delegates to the national party convention. Each state party convention names a slate of potential presidential electors to cast the Electoral College votes for Texas should the party's presidential candidate carry the state in the November general election Each party has a permanent party organization that operates year-round. At the base of the permanent party organization are the precinct and county chairpersons. Precinct chairpersons conduct primary elections by staffing the polling place on election day. The county executive committee is the next highest level of permanent party organization. It receives filing petitions and fees from primary election candidates for countywide offices; responsible for placing candidates' names on the ballot; arranges county and district conventions. The state executive committee is the highest level of party organization in the state; it includes the party chair and vice chair and committee persons representing each of the 36 state's electoral districts. It certifies statewide candidates for the spring primary, arranges state party conventions, raise money for party candidates, promote the party; state party chairs serve as media spokespersons for their party. History of the Texas Party System - For nearly a century, Texas was a one-party Democratic state. The Civil War and Reconstruction produced the one-party Democratic South. Remember, it was the Republican Party that fought to free the slaves. Because of this, Texas Democrats didn't like the Republican Party. In Texas, Democrats won nearly every statewide race, most seats in Congress and the state legislature, and the overwhelming majority of local and judicial contests, frequently without Republican opposition. In 1952, 66 percent of Texans called themselves Democrats; six percent referred to themselves as Republicans. By the mid-1960s 37 percent of Texans who said they were once conservative Democrats had left the party. The 1970 election signaled the emergence of a competitive two-party system in Texas. In 1984, Democrats outnumbered Republicans buy only 33 percent to 28 percent. The Party Balance - Republicans now outnumber Democrats in Texas. In 2012, a survey showed that 55.5 percent of Texans consider themselves Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party, compared to 38.8 percent who identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party. But, as the Hispanic population increases, the percent Democrats will increase as well. Currently, Texas ranks as the seventh most Republican state in the nation. Voting Patterns - Just like on the national level, demographics play a role on which party an individual is likely to identify with. Income: Higher income citizens support Republican candidates and lower income voters back Democrats. Race and Ethnicity: Minority voters tend to support the Democrats, while white voters overwhelmingly support Republicans. Region: Historically, East Texas and South Texas have been Democratic strongholds; Democrats still hold most local offices in East Texas, but Republican candidates for statewide or national office often run strong in the region. Place of Residence: Republicans are strongest in the suburbs; Democrats run best in the inner city; rural areas are trending Republican, at least for national and statewide office. The Future of Party Politics in Texas - The Republican Party is likely to maintain its hold on state government at least through the rest of the decade. In the long run, some political scientists argue demographic changes may enable the Democratic Party to regain dominance in Texas.

Interest Group Structure - Interest groups can be structured in a number of ways. At the top of the interest group hierarchy are associational interest groups. These groups are highly structured with rules, leadership, and official names known to members and nonmembers. For example, the League of Women Voters in Texas is a non-partisan group that focuses on voter education. This group is highly structured with by-laws, a mission statement, a board of directors, and a recognizable name. Interest groups can have non-associational and anomic structures as well. The characteristic that differentiates these two interest group structures is the length of time that the group exists - non-associational groups endure for longer periods of time than do anomic groups. In both of these group types there is very little structure or organization and neither is likely to have an official name; although non-associational groups may have a name. Non-associational and anomic groups arise spontaneously in response to a specific event or issue. Recent examples of non-associational groups are the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. While these groups arose out of very different circumstances - the Tea Party in response to government taxation and spending and Occupy Wall Street in response to the accumulation of wealth by the top one percent - they have both impacted policies at the state and national levels. Here's a partial list of interest groups at work in Texas.

Roles of the News Media in Democracy - The central idea of democracy is that ordinary citizens should control what their government does. Yet, this requires that citizens have comprehensive, accurate, and objective information about politics. This is where the media comes in. It is their job to provide this comprehensive, accurate, and objective information. I can tell y'all that the media is not doing a good job at providing this information. That said, all the blame cannot be put on the media - some of it is our fault. It's our fault because we tune out when the media gets too wonkish. So, what should the media be doing? Specifically, the media should: Act as a watchdog over government - This means investigating and reporting waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. Clarify what electoral choices the public has - This means providing an in-depth analysis of what candidates stand for and the policies they'll pursue if elected. Present a full and enlightening set of ideas about public policy to the public - This means providing an in-depth analysis of public policy options and outcomes. How is the media doing on these points? Not well! To the first point, the media would rather report on government scandals (cheating elected officials, etc.) than on how much voting fraud is going on. To the second point, the media usually provides "horse-race" coverage of races, meaning they simply report on who is ahead and who is gaining. To the third point, the media usually just reports what elected officials tell them about policy. Consider the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The media didn't investigate Obama's claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." This turned out to be false. Had the media done their job and investigated this claim, they would have known it was false before the bill passed. The Media Landscape - There are, of course, several modes by which the media can deliver information. There has been an evolution to how information is delivered as well. We'll go through each and discuss their pros and cons. Newspapers: Newspapers were the first mode of delivering news to the masses. Early on, before the printing press, newspapers were relatively expensive though. This meant that only the wealthy could afford them; therefore, only the wealthy were informed. With the invention of the printing press, and its evolution, the price of newspapers dropped dramatically. By the mid-1800s, we had "penny papers" in the US. This meant that the working class could now afford to buy and read newspapers. Another invention that expanded newspaper availability was the telegraph system. Consider this - for people who were expanding West during the 1800s, it could take weeks or even months for important political news to travel from Washington DC westward. The telegraph created the "wire services," which are still in use today. The wire services would report on important news and charge local newspapers a fee to transmit the information to them over the telegraph system. This allowed people in North Dakota to receive news from DC almost immediately. As I mentioned, the wire services are still used today. For example, the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel can't afford to send reporters to DC, or Iraq, or China to report on what's going on there, so it subscribes to one or more of the wire services that have reporters there. The two most prominent wire services are Reuters out of the United Kingdom and the Associated Press (AP) out of the US. Check any national or international story in the Daily Sentinel and you will find an AP byline. Newspapers tend to provide more comprehensive and high-quality information, but Americans increasingly favor radio and television. Also, newspapers began the practice called "yellow journalism." Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that provides little or no legitimate news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. This practice was pioneered by William Randolph Hearst. Radio: Commercial radio stations with broad audiences were established in the 1920s. Stations all over the country were organized into networks that shared news and other programs. FDR was the first president to take advantage of radio with his fireside chats. Listen to FDR's fireside chats here. We take for granted that we see and/or hear from presidents almost daily. This was not the case in the 1930s and 1940s. Before radio, most Americans lived their entire lives without ever hearing a president speak. The public's interest in hearing the president's voice made fireside chats popular. It also gave FDR an invaluable opportunity to promote his agenda and gain support. Television (TV) almost killed the radio. Once people could watch what was going on, they were less likely to listen to it. But, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a resurgence of modern radio. This was largely the result of one person - Rush Limbaugh. Rush's success spawned a host of AM call-in talk shows. Now the AM radio waves are crowded with conservative talk-show hosts like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. For some reason, liberal radio talk-shows don't work. Millions of dollars have been invested in liberal radio platforms like Air America, but they all failed. Don't worry liberals. What y'all lack on talk-radio, y'all make up for on the Internet. And there is National Public Radio (NPR), which is part of the Public Broadcasting Station network. NPR works because it is publicly funded (tax dollars) so it doesn't have to compete in the free-market with conservative talk-radio. Television: Although invented earlier, television remained largely unaffordable for the average American until the 1950s. Once it became affordable, it was adopted on a large scale. What I pointed out for radio largely applied to TV as well - most Americans had only seen presidents pictured in newspapers or movie reel shorts. TV brought the president into the average American's living room. It made the president a much more personal figure. Today, most people name television as their most important source of news. This is unfortunate in terms of civic literacy. As explained before, newspapers provide the most information - TV provides the least. Because of time constraints and advertising, TV usually only provides minimal information, which is reduced to sound-bites of only a few seconds. The Internet: The Internet has profoundly changed the way we get news - some for the better and some for the worse. This news source is both reliable and spurious. Reliable in that some Internet sources provide real news; spurious in that some Internet sources do not. The problem here is in determining which is which. Someone could start a new Internet site called bestpoliticalnews.com but that doesn't mean it is, in fact, the best political news available. Here's the main issue with Internet news - there can be no checks on the information. In a newspaper there is a reporter, editor, and publisher. The reporter gets the story and writes it, the editor checks it for accuracy, and the publisher decides whether to print it. For some websites, all three of these roles are filled by one person. There are no checks. On the good side, the Internet is a new mechanism for citizen to citizen and citizen to governmnet communication. Also, the Internet provides for multiple modes of delivery. While newspapers are read, radio listened to, and TV watched, Internet news site can combine all three modes of delivery. Finally, the Internet has the potential for organizing collective actions. Sites like Facebook can be used to call attention to important issues and call people to action.

Political Newsmaking - There is a limited geography of political news. What this means is most of our political news comes from within Washington DC and relates how the news effects the federal government, not how it effects local concerns. Therefore, we get a healthy dose of mostly positive news concerning the federal government. DC reporters are also dependent on official sources (people in the White House and/or Congress) for their information. Because of this, there is a reluctance to piss these people off by reporting negatively - reporters are concerned that they'll lose their source if they report bad things. Reporters have what are called "beats" about which they report. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, and MSNBC all have a White House correspondent who only covers the White House, which is their beat. Each of these news organizations will also have a congressional and judicial correspondent whose only job is covering these institutions. This practice has pros and cons. On the pro side, the reporters become specialized in their beat area. They develop sources and, often, friendships with key figures of their beat. The friendships and sources can be considered a con because reporters might not want to relay negative news about their friends and sources. One of the more troubling aspects about the main-stream media over the last 40 years is the practice on "interpreting" the news. The media used to strive for objectivity - meaning they would simply report the facts and let the audience figure it out. Then, in the 1970s, the media decided we weren't smart enough to figure things out, so they started interpreting the news for us. The problem with this approach is that it allows bias to enter into reporting. Is the News Biased?: Some disagree about whether the media are biased in a liberal or a conservative direction. And there are arguments on both sides. Conservatives argue that there is a liberal bias because the vast majority of Washington DC reporters are Democrats. This is, in fact, true. We know this because surveys and campaign donations show this to be true. Liberals argue that there is a conservative bias because most media owners and CEOs are Republican. This used to be true, but not anymore. Recent research shows that most owners/CEOs are now giving money to the Democrat Party. There is current research that indicates a strong liberal bias in the main-stream media. Effects of the Media on Politics - If you're wondering how media bias gets into the news and effects politics, they use agenda setting, framing, and priming. Agenda Setting: What stories the media decide to cover is called agenda setting. By deciding what to cover, the media is telling us what's important; by not covering something, they are telling us it's not important. On September 11, 2012, just a few weeks before the presidential election, terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and killed four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. The mainstream media largely ignored the story. By doing so, they basically told the American people it wasn't an important story. Framing: Framing regards whether the media will report an event, policy, etc. in a positive or negative way - this is where real bias is revealed. Here are some examples that will make the point. Everyone knows that Fox News (FNC) leans conservative and MSNBC leans liberal. How would each of these news outlets frame a Tea Party rally and an Occupy Wall Street rally? FNC would frame the Tea Party supporters as patriots, while MSNBC would frame them as racists. FNC would frame Occupy Wall Street supporters as criminals, while MSNBC would frame them as patriots. They are both reporting on the same event/people but they frame them very different ways. The mainstream media makes decisions every day of how to frame military actions, the economy, etc. The frame they decide of manipulates the audience without their knowing it. Priming: The media uses priming to tell us how we should evaluate an elected official. For example, the media usually primes us to evaluate presidents by how well the economy is doing. In reality, presidents have little control over the economy. They can tinker with raising or lowering taxes, increasing or decreasing spending, etc. but those activities, alone, cannot impact the economy by any great measure. Government Regulation of the Media - Government has less legal control over the media in the United States than in most other countries. But that doesn't mean they have no control! Print media: Although the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. The "sedition" part of the law restricted speech that was critical of the government! Thankfully, Jefferson allowed the acts to expire in 1800 and 1801 respectively. Another issue with print media is "prior restraint." This is when the government tells a newspaper that they can't print something. Cases dealing with prior restraint have been in the courts over US history, but came to a head with the Pentagon Papers. You should remember this case from the modules on civil liberties. I won't revisit the case except to note that the Supreme Court ruled against the government's claim of prior restraint. Basically, prior restraint cannot be used after the fact when there are no national security issues involved. Electronic media: While newspapers are 100% privately owned, the US government owns and licenses of the airwaves. Government became involved in the airwaves to help establish order between TV and radio stations. To accomplish this, the government provides licenses to a television or radio broadcast for a certain airwave. This keeps TV and radio stations from broadcasting over each other on the airwaves. Because the government owns and licenses the airwaves, content is subject to more restriction. For example, cable and satellite broadcasts can contain nudity, sex, and profanity. Networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS cannot. Below are some acts passed to regulate the public airwaves. Radio Act of 1927 - Created to regulate radio use as the public interest, convenience, or necessity requires. Federal Communications Act of 1934 - Created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee radio and wire communications. Telecommunications Act of 1996 - The goal was to deregulate the broadcasting and telecommunication markets. Fairness doctrine - Required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a honest, equitable, and balanced way. Equal-time provision - Required holders of broadcast licenses to provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. The Media and Democracy - Democracy is weakened if the mass media fail to present informative, analytical, and sophisticated coverage of political issues. A shortage of good information makes it difficult for citizens to form intelligent political judgments. After going through this module, how well do you think the media is doing with its role in our democracy? Would you give them a passing grade?

Recruiting candidates for public office - The party organizations, in and out of government, actively search for candidates to run for office. Presenting alternative policies to the electorate - This is done through the platforms the parties create every four years at the national conventions. In the platforms, parties specify the policies/programs they will peruse if they are giving control of the government by the voters. Accepting responsibility for operating the government - Unfortunately, we don't see much of this anymore. The Truman days of, "The buck stops here," meaning he should be held responsible, have been replaced with blaming the other party of previous presidents for everything. Acting as the organized opposition to the party in power - The party that doesn't have the presidency is called the "out-party." Their job is to provide alternative policies to those being proposed by the party in power. The Role of Political Parties in a Democracy - Political parties can do a number of things to make popular sovereignty and political equality possible. First, they keep elected officials responsive through competitive elections keep linkage provided between voters and elected officials helping to tell voters what they stand for and holding their candidates accountable. Second, they include a broad range of groups. Unlike interest groups that are issue specific, political parties are broader. While the National Riffle Association (NRA) is only concerned with gun rights, the Republican Party is concerned with gun rights, pro-life issues, tax issues, etc. Third, they can help ensure accountability. They do this by giving voters the ability to know which party is in power when things go well or when things go badly. Finally, they help people make sense of complexity in politics. A "heuristic" is an intellectual shortcut. The number one heuristic used in voting is party identification. This means that voters don't need to know every issue that a candidate running for a position supports. They only need to know what party the candidate belongs to. Then they can make "reasonable" assumptions about the candidate. This isn't perfect, but parties do simplify History of the Two-Party System - Most Western democracies have multiparty systems. In the United States, two parties have dominated the political scene since 1836. At this time it was the Democrats and Whigs. Democrats and Republicans have controlled the Presidency and Congress since 1860. The Republican Party is the only third-party to replace a major party (Whigs). This started with the election of President Lincoln, who was the first Republican president. Party Realignment: Realignment is a transition period when a party system dominated by one of the two major parties is replaced by another system dominated by the other party. The First Party System: Federalists versus Democratic Republicans - Parties were created almost immediately after the country's founding, even though the Founders were hostile to them in theory. The Federalist Party formed in the 1790s, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton. The Democratic Republicans soon formed as an opposition party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Federalists became tainted by actions such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, enacted to repress dissent and opposition to Federalist policies. By 1816, the two-party system evolved into a one-party or no-party system, known as the Era of Good Feelings. The Second Party System: Democrats versus Whigs - In the 1830s, a strong two-party system developed between the Democrats (formerly the Democratic Republicans) and the Whigs. Andrew Jackson's supporters organized into the Democratic Party; John Quincy Adam's supporters organized the Whig Party. The Civil War split the parties; the northern and southern wings of each party mirrored the split in the nation - with the southern factions supporting slavery and the northern factions not supporting slavery. Fragments of the Whig Party came together with Free-Soilers and antislavery Democrats to form the Republican Party. Democrats nominated two candidates to run against Lincoln, which split the Democrat vote and secured Lincoln's win. From the Civil War to 1896: Republicans and Democrats in Balance - Following Reconstruction, Republicans and Democrats were somewhat balanced in national politics. Between 1876 and 1896, Democrats controlled the presidency for eight of 20 years, the Senate for six years, and the House of Representatives for 14 years. Each party had a strong regional flavor - Democrats in the South and Republicans in the North. At this time, the Democratic Party was primarily a white southern party. The Republicans became a party of business, the middle-class, and newly enfranchised African Americans. The Party System of 1896: Republican dominance and the rise of the Populist Party - Rapid economic and social change in the late nineteenth century led to the rise of protest movements and third parties. The Populist Party garnered 8.5% of the total vote in 1932 and won four states. During the 1890s, it won eight governorships and around that many state legislatures. In the presidential election of 1896, the Populist Party joined Democrats to nominate radical pro-labor candidate William Jennings Bryan. Conservative Democrats join Republicans to support pro-business candidate William McKinley. In the South, efforts to intimidate potential black voters increased dramatically. The Republicans won soundly and continued to dominate politics through the election of 1932. The New Deal Party System: Democratic Party Dominance - The New Deal party system grew out of the crisis of the Great Depression and favorable public reactions to government efforts to deal with the economic collapse. The party system underwent a realignment (1932-1936) from Republican to Democratic dominance. This was the last true realignment. The New Deal coalition supported an expansion of federal government powers and responsibilities, particularly in the areas of old age assistance, aid for the poor, encouragement of unionization, subsidies for agriculture, and regulation of business. The Sixth Party System: Dealignment & Parity - The electoral coalition that formed the basis of the New Deal party system began to seriously deteriorate in 1968 and finally collapsed in 1994. Unlike earlier transitions, where one dominant party was replaced by another one, in this transition the previously dominant party lost preeminence, but no new party took its place. Many call the process of transition to the sixth party system dealignment. The sixth party system is characterized by: Parity between the parties - No one party has a clear majority of support from the American people. Declining party identification - More people are identifying as "Independent," especially in the millenial generation. More sharply divided views between Republicans and Democrats - The parties are becoming more polarized, meaning they take different positions on more issues. Why a Two-Party System? - Why does the United States have a two-party system when most Western democracies have multiparty systems? Electoral rules. Most Western democracies have proportional representation, meaning parties receive the percentage of seats in the legislative body that they received in the election. For example, if there were 100 seats in the legislature and party A received 22% of the popular vote, party A would get 22 of the 100 legislative seats. In America we have a winner-take-all, plurality election, single-member districts ("first past the post") system. This means that the candidate with the most, not a majority, votes, wins. In our system, a candidate with 22% of the vote is very unlikely to have the most votes in any district or state. Therefore, we don't have many third, or minor, party representation in the House or Senate. Restrictions on Minor Parties - Aside from a minor party candidate being able to receive the most votes in and district or state, there are other restrictions that hamper their ability to even get candidates on the ballot. For example, while Republican and Democrat candidates will be listed on ballots, third-parties need a considerable number of signatures are required to get on the ballot. Also, while Democrat and Republican presidential candidates are qualified to receive public funding, third party candidates must attract five percent of votes cast in general elections to receive public funding. The Role of Minor Parties in the Two-Party System: Minor parties have played a less-important role in the United States than in virtually any other democratic nation. In history, only the Republican Party has managed to replace one of the major parties; only seven have been able to win ten percent of the popular vote in a presidential election; and only seven have managed to win a single state in a presidential election. Types of Minor Parties: There are several "types" of minor parties. These include: Protest parties - sometimes arise as part of a protest movement (Green Party). Ideological parties - are organized around coherent sets of ideas (Libertarian Party). Single-issue parties - are barely distinguishable from interest groups (Perot's "balanced budget" Reform Party). Splinter parties - form when a faction in one of the two major parties bolts to run its own candidate (Bull Moose Progressive Party). The Role of Minor Parties: Even though minor parties have difficulty getting on ballots and wining races, they do play an important role in US elections. First, they may articulate and popularize new ideas that are eventually taken over by one or both major parties. This is what Perot's inclusion in the 1992 presidential election did. The Democrats and Republicans had been ignoring the national debt, which was Perot's main issue. His showing in that election (19%) convinced the major parties that the public cared about this issue and they started addressing it. Second, they may allow people with grievances to express themselves in a way that is not possible within the major parties. That is, they may vote for a third-party to show their dissatisfaction with the main parties. Finally, they can sometimes alter the outcome of presidential contests by changing the outcome of the electoral votes in key states. Ross Perot took valuable votes from George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Ralph Nader took valuable votes from Al Gore in 2000. The Three Faces of a Party - Party-in-the-Electorate: Those members of the general public who identify with a political party or who express a preference for one party over the other. This is us, the people. If you identify as a Republican or Democrat, you are part of the party-in-the-electorate. Party-in-Government: All of the elected and appointed officials who identify with a political party. This includes all of the political members of federal, state, and local governments. The third face is Party Organization: The formal structure and leadership of a political party, including election committees; local, state, and national executives; and paid professional staff. These are the folks who identify potential, organize fundraisers, and mobilize voters to turn out for their candidate. In most democratic countries, parties are fairly well-structured organizations, they are led by party professionals, committed to a set of policies and principles, have clearly-defined membership requirements (they may actually refuse to let someone join), have centralized control over nominations and financing, and have substantial discipline over party members who hold political office. The Ambiguous Nature of American Political Parties: Unlike parties in most democratic countries, American parties are composed of many diverse and independent groups and individuals. Also, presidents cannot automatically count on the support of their own party. This is because presidents and members of Congress have different terms of office (two years in the House, six years in the Senate, and four years for presidents) and different constituents (districts for the House, states for the Senate, and the country for presidents). Because they have different terms and constituents, members of Congress, even if they share the president's party ideology, may not support the president. Finally, the vagueness of party membership - Americans do not join parties in the sense of paying dues and receiving membership cards. All you need to do "join" a political party in the US is say you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Decentralized Organization - The national party committees conduct the business of the party between national conventions; provide services for local and state parties, and candidates; financial contributions to party candidates. State party organizations are relatively independent of one-another and of the national party. This means that the nation parties can't dictate what kind of local candidates parties can run. For example, Democrats running in Texas are more conservative than Democrats running in New York. Similarly, Republicans running in New Jersey are more moderate than Democrats running in Alabama. The Primacy of Candidates - Unlike elections in most Western democracies, American politics is candidate-centered. This means we vote for the candidate who represents a party; in Europe, voters vote for the party that represents the candidate. Here candidates have independent sources of campaign financing, their own campaign organizations, and their own campaign themes and priorities. In addition, the party can do very little about nominees who oppose party leaders and reject national party platforms and policies. For example, even though the Democrat Party Platform supports pro-choice policies, there are pro-life Democrats. Candidates are now almost exclusively nominated in primaries or grass roots caucuses, where the party organizations have little influence. Ideology & Program - An ideology is an organized set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of the good society and the role government ought to play in achieving it. Here, instead of talking about political parties (Republican, Democrat, and Independent), we're talking about the attitudes, values, and beliefs that lead someone to support a political party. For example, conservatives are likely to identify as Republicans liberals as Democrats, and moderates as Independents. Each party's core supporters are more ideologically oriented than the general public, meaning core Democrats are much more liberal than average Democrats and core Republicans are much more conservative than average Republicans. Yet both parties are broad coalitions and face strong pressures to be ideologically ambiguous in order to win in winner-take-all, single-member-district elections. As we discussed in the US Elections module, this is why the median-voter theory persists. How Are the Parties Different? - The differences between Democrats and Republicans are real, important, and enduring, and appear to be becoming more distinctive: In the perceptions of the electorate: Democrats are perceived to be more liberal and Republicans are perceived to be more conservative. In terms of who supports them: Minorities, women, labor, and the poor are more likely to support Democrats; whites, men, those with higher levels of education, and those who earn higher wages are more likely to support Republicans. In their political platforms: Republican and Democrat party platforms often outline opposite policy positions. Think you know which party you might belong to? Check the platform just in case! In the policy decisions (most notably the voting behavior) of their elected representatives: Elections matter! Electing more Democrats results in more liberal policies; electing more Republicans results in more conservative policies. Growing Ideological Differences Between the Parties - The Republican Party became more consistently conservative after the mid-1970s and the Democratic Party became more consistently liberal after the mid-1990s. The Parties in Government - The parties in government refers to government officials who have been elected under the party's label. To avoid tyrannical government, the Founders designed a system of government in which power is so fragmented and competitive that effectiveness is unlikely. One of the roles that political parties play is to persuade officials in the different branches to cooperate with one another on the basis of party loyalty. The Problem of Divided Government: Divided party government occurs when the executive and legislative branches are held by opposing political parties. For example, once the Democrats took the House and Senate back in the 2006 mid-term elections, we had divided government - Congress run by Democrats and the presidency controlled by a Republican. Today we have semi-divided government - Republicans have the House, Democrats have the Senate and presidency. Divided government adds to the "gridlock" and paralysis that are built into the constitutional design of our system of government. For any of you who have been on a freeway in Houston or Dallas around 5pm on a weekday, you know what gridlock is! Gridlock in government is the same thing - nothing moves! Parties in the Electorate - Parties in the electorate refers to individuals who are supporters of the party. Americans are less inclined to identify with either of the parties than they were in the past.

Roles of Interest Groups - Interest groups are private organizations that try to shape public policy as a way to protect or advance some interest. Interest groups try to influence the behavior of political decision makers through a variety of activities. They are also known as pressure groups or lobbies. The term "pressure groups" comes from the fact that they pressure elected officials to support their issue. They are sometimes called "lobbies" because the interest group representatives would have to wait in the lobby of the capital building for the elected officials to leave the House or Senate floor to talk with them about their issue. The Evils of Factions - James Madison warned of the dangers and divisiveness of factions (his term for interest groups) in The Federalist, No. 10. He wrote, "A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." The theme of the evils of factions has recurred throughout American history. The Pluralist Argument: Pluralist political scientists argue that interest groups are important instruments in a democracy and serve the public interest in the following ways: Interest groups convey public desires to government officials better than do elections. People are free to join or to organize groups that reflect their own interests. Because power is dispersed in the American political system, there are many openings for diverse groups to have their interests heard. Due to the ease of group formation and the accessibility of government, all legitimate interest groups can have their views heard. Interest Group Formation: The escalation in the number of interest groups is tied to several factors, which include: When the political culture supports the pursuit of private interests. Diversity of interests in the United States. Heterogeneous society leads to a diversity of interests. Rules of the Political Game - The First Amendment guarantees citizens basic rights that are essential to the ability of citizens to form organizations. These include the right of assembly and to petition the government, which is precisely what interest groups do. Also, government is organized in such a way that decision makers are relatively accessible to interest groups. In other words, because of federalism, checks and balances, and the separation of powers, there is no dominant center of decision making. Federalism because this affords interest groups many levels of government (federal, state, and local) to lobby; checks and balances and separation of powers because there are many branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) to lobby. The Growth in Government - As government takes on more responsibilities, it has a greater impact on facets of economic, social, and personal life.As such, people, groups, and organizations are increasingly affected by the actions of government. And when new government agencies are established, new interest groups emerge. For example, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on March 1, 2003. By mid-September 2003, there were already 108 registered lobbyists for homeland security. The point is simple - before government starts regulating some aspect of life, there is no need for lobbying. But once government starts regulating something, it will impact some interest and lobbying will begin. Disturbance Theory - Groups tend to form only when people feel that their interests are being threatened. For example, the Christian Coalition was created when many evangelical Christians began to feel threatened by family breakdown, an increase in the number of abortions, and the sexual revolution, and the growing voices of gays and lesbians. Incentives - Some social scientists argue that even when people feel threatened, they will form groups only if doing so provides them with a selective, material benefit. If someone can get the benefit without joining the group (known as a free-rider), then there may be no purpose in joining. The free-rider problem tends to occur when a group is interested in some collective good that benefits everyone and not just members. For example, groups that advocate for a cleaner environment are pursuing collective goods because everyone benefits from a cleaner environment. Why would anyone pay to join a group that provides collective goods? Selective incentives. For example, if you join the Sierra Club (an environmental group), you get a backpack and other selective incentives. That said, there has been a proliferation of public interest and ideological groups, which suggests purposes or incentives other than material and selective incentives. What Interests Are Represented - Interest groups may be classified by the type of interest they represent. Public interests are interests that are connected in one way or another to the general welfare of the community; advocates for a cause or an ideology; are also known as citizens' groups. They try to get government to do things that will benefit the general public rather than the direct material interests of their own members. They tend to be supported by people due to ideological concerns or belief in a cause, rather than material incentives. Private interests are associated with benefits for some fraction of the community; protects or advances the material interests of its members. Private Interest Group Examples: Business U.S. Chamber of Commerce American Medical Association (AMA) Labor Unions Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Organizations Public Interest Group Examples: Environmental Defense Fund National Right-to-Life Committee All interest groups have grown substantially in number and influence since the late 1960s. What Interest Groups Do - Interest groups are composed of people with common goals or interests who try to convey the views of some sector of society and to influence government on their behalf. There are two basic types of interest group activity: the inside game and the outside game. The Inside Game: This is what most people think of when they think about what interest groups and lobbyist do. The inside game involves direct contact of the interest group representative and government officials. It is the politics of insiders, of the old-boy network, of one-on-one persuasion in which a skilled lobbyist tries to persuade a decision maker to accept the point of view of the interest group, The inside game involves: Lobbying Congress - leaders, chairpersons, key staff members. Lobbying the executive branch - department staff. Lobbying the courts - amicus curiae (friend of the court). The Outside Game: The outside game is an indirect form of influence that involves interest group efforts to mobilize public opinion, voters, and important contributors. Evidence of increased importance compared to "inside" lobbying (though inside lobbying still tends to be more directly effective). The outside game involves: Mobilizing membership to act with letters, emails, and phone calls. Shaping public opinion with education and advertising. Involvement in campaigns and elections with get-out-the-vote drives and campaign donations and advertisements. Possible Flaws in Pluralism - Three of the biggest problems associated with interest groups are "representational inequalities," "resource inequalities," and "access inequality." These are related. Resource inequalities point to the fact that all interest groups do not have the same funds with which to lobby. This makes intuitive sense. Obviously, groups that represent the interests of the poor cannot count on poor people being able to pay dues to join and fund activities; they must rely on people with money caring enough about the plight of the poor to fund it. On the other hand, groups that represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful, will have plenty of resources at their disposal. Because money buys access, there are representational inequalities as well - groups with more resources secure more representation. Taken together, well-funded groups have more access than those with less funds. In addition to representational, resource, and access inequalities, there are a few more potential flaws with pluralism. These include: Subgovernments - alliances among interest groups, institutions within each house of Congress, and an executive branch agency that work to advance a particular agenda. Agency capture - a situation in which a regulated industry exercises substantial influence on the government agency regulating it. Interest group liberalism - a political regime in which interest groups help formulate and carry out government policies. Iron triangles - an enduring alliance of common interests among an interest group, a congressional committee, and a bureaucratic agency. While these concerns are real, because of efforts made to make government more transparent, subgovernments and agency capture are rare. Interest group liberalism and iron triangles do exist. But this isn't necessarily bad. Interest groups can provide valuable information and expertise to the policy making process. Curing the Mischief of Factions - Although interest groups are protected under the First Amendment, there are some restrictions on there activities. These restrictions are in the areas of disclosure, regulation, and control. The bills below are linked to Internet resources. Click on the links and read more about the bills. Disclosure - Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (1946) and the Lobbying Disclosure Act (1995). Regulation - Ethics in Government Act (1978). Control - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002). Many worry that these reforms do not get to the heart of the problem. Some political scientists suggest we focus our efforts on strengthening institutions of majoritarian democracy such as political parties, the presidency, and Congress. Efforts to reform the interest group system may be frustrated by the inescapable fact that highly unequal resources eventually find their way into our political life. Just how many interest groups do we have in the US? Here's one list. The First Amendment protects your right to form political parties and interest groups. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no laws...prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The term assemble protects your right to form groups (e.g., political parties and interest groups). The phrase petition the Government refers to exactly what political parties and interest groups do; they ask the government to make or change policy. Political parties and interest groups influence policy, but they are very different creatures. Major distinctions between political parties and interest groups include: political parties influence government from within (i.e., members of parties run for and hold elected offices), while interest groups influence government from the outside (i.e., lobbying). Second, political parties represent a host of issues (e.g., abortion policy, gun policy, tax policy, etc.), while interest groups are usually single policy issue organizations. The instant an interest group runs a candidate for an elected position, it becomes a political party. For example, today's Green Party began as an environmental interest group. Since becoming a political party, it has expanded its issue concerns to promote social justice, which includes issues like civil rights, poverty, and human rights.

FORMS of GOVERNMENT: There are three basic forms, or structures, that government can take. Federalism - significant government powers are divided between the central government and smaller governmental units. Confederation - constituent units or states retain ultimate authority and can veto major actions of the central government. Unitary - central government exercises all governmental powers and can change its constituent units. Since federalism is the topic of this lecture, it will be explained in detail below. Before continuing, though, I'll provide a little more information on confederate and unitary forms of government. As you learned previously, the United States of America was originally a confederation - a weak centralized government with ultimate power residing in the individual states. For all the reasons discussed before, this didn't work very well. Today there are no countries that utilize confederate form of government, but there are confederations. An example of a current confederation is the United Nations (UN). The UN is a confederation of countries - the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, etc. - with a weak centralized governing body. The member countries of the UN work together to solve global problems, but the UN has no independent power to enforce its rulings. It must rely on the cooperation of member countries. For example, the UN, as a body, supports stricter regulations on CO2 emissions. But it cannot force the United States to adopt stricter regulations on CO2 emissions. This is because, even though the United States is a member of the UN, the United States retains ultimate self-governing authority. Unlike confederations, there are many examples of unitary governments around the world. Important characteristics of most unitary governments is that they are often geographically small and compact, and demographically homogenous. Considering these characteristics, it's not surprising that most European countries have unitary governments. France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, to name a few, are all unitary countries. In fact, the unitary form of government is the most used form of government today. The reason geographically small and demographically homogenous countries prefer unitary government is because it works well under these conditions. Juxtapose these conditions with a geographically large and demographically diverse country like the United States. One size fits all (unitary) does not work well in the United States. Consider Texas and Oregon. These states are very different - what works in one might not work in the other. In our federal system, many decisions are left to the individual states because they know better than Washington D.C. what works best for them. FEDERALISM as a SYSTEM of GOVERNMENT: American federalism involves a multiplicity of governing levels and units. These include the national government, state governments, and local governments (city/town and county governments). One of the issues concerning federalism is that there are no neat boundaries among different forms of government. Consider the following - If you're on the Stephen F. Austin State University campus, how many law enforcement entities, and what level of government, have jurisdiction over you? If you have a joint in your backpack, that would be an issue for the University Police Department, but the Nacogdoches Police Department and the Nacogdoches County Sheriff would have jurisdiction, too. This is because SFA is a subunit within the city of Nacogdoches and Nacogdoches County. Now, if instead of a joint, you have a pound of marijuana in your backpack, that would be an issue for the state police - Department of Public Safety. This is because SFA, Nacogdoches, and Nacogdoches County are subunits of Texas. Finally, if you have five pounds of marijuana in your backpack, that would be an issue for federal law enforcement - Drug Enforcement Agency. This is because SFA, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County, and Texas are subunits of the United States. Further, each of the above offenses is a different crime, with a different penalty, under a different level of government. A joint is personal use and the jurisdiction of local government; a pound implies an intent to sell and the jurisdiction of state government; five pounds implies an intent to traffic and the jurisdiction of federal government. FEDERALISM in the CONSTITUTION: Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that according to the US Constitution, federal laws and treaties are considered the supreme law (Supremacy Clause) of the land. State courts and laws are bound to this supreme law and in the case of conflict between the two, federal law must ultimately apply - this includes laws described in state constitutions. For example, the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution expanded suffrage (the right to vote) to 18, 19, and 20 year-old citizens. As such, Texas cannot pass a law or state constitutional amendment denying 18, 19, and 20 year-old citizens the right to vote. The federal amendment is supreme over state law. That said, the federal constitution is silent on whether states can revoke voting rights for felons. Because it is silent on this matter, Texas can restrict voting rights based on criminal history. If the federal government ever adopted an amendment granting felons the right to vote, Texas would have to allow them to vote. The 10th Amendment (Reservation Clause) to the US Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What this basically means is that any power not specifically given to the US is reserved to the states. This explains the previous example concerning felons' right to vote. Other examples are speed limits, drinking ages, the use of capital punishment, property and sale's taxes, etc. Because the US Constitution is silent on these matters, states can decide these matters for themselves.

STATE ROLES in NATIONAL GOVERNMENT: Individual states play an important role in the national government. One of the most important influences that states have is in the process of amending the US Constitution. Article 5 of the Constitution outlines the amending process. Once an amendment has been proposed and passed by both chambers of Congress by a two-thirds majority, it goes to the states for ratification. To be ratified (adopted) three-fourths of the states must approve of the amendment. This can be done by the state legislatures or in amendment conventions. The states also play a role in the national government through the Senate and the House of Representatives. The members elected to Congress represent the issues and concerns of their constituents - the entire state in the Senate and districts within states in the House of Representatives. This infuses localism in the national government in that Senators and Representatives are there to support citizens of their state/district. RELATIONS AMONG the STATES: So far we've been talking about vertical federalism - federalism involving the national, state, and local governments - but there's also horizontal federalism - federalism between the states. In this regard, citizenship rights a person has in one state apply in other states (privileges and immunities) and contracts, public acts, etc. entered into in one state are legal in another state (full faith and credit). The Privileges and Immunities Clause is found in Article Four of the US Constitution. It states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The purpose was to make sure citizens of one state couldn't be mistreated while in another state. For example, a Texas resident pulled over for speeding in California cannot be given a different fine simply because they are from another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is found in Article Four of the US Constitution as well. It states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." For example, if it's legal to marry your 14-year-old cousin in Arkansas, and the couple then moves to Texas, Texas has to respect the legality of that marriage. Obviously there are "same sex" marriage issues here, but this topic is unresolved. EVOLUTION of AMERICAN FEDERALISM: Despite many ebbs and flows in the relative power of the states and national government, eventually the national government gained ground. There are several reasons why the federal government has increased power over the states. First, economic crises generate pressures for a greater national government role. The national government controls the money supply through the Federal Reserve and it controls the federal income tax. Actions on both of these can impact the economy by increasing or decreasing the money supply and/or by raising or lowering federal income taxes. Second, war also spurs a greater national government role. From rationing materials and nationalizing the steel industry to creating the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the national government almost always expands its power during times of war. Finally, problems arose that were best solved by the national government (e.g., pollution, the denial of civil rights, etc.). Pollution is a unique problem that must be addressed by the national government for one simple reason - pollution does not respect state boundaries. If the states were allowed to regulate pollutants, some states would have stricter laws while others would have much less strict laws. This would result in pollution flowing down river and impacting other states or blowing across state lines and impacting other states. We'll discuss civil rights in much more detail after the first exam. DEBATE ABOUT the NATURE of AMERICAN FEDERALISM: The Nationalist Position - the view of American federalism that holds that the Constitution created a system in which the national government is supreme, relative to the states, and that granted to it a broad range of powers and responsibilities. This argument focuses on the "supremacy clause," which states that the federal Constitution and federal laws are supreme to state constitutions and laws. For example, the 26th Amendment expands voting rights to 18, 19, and 20-year-old citizens. Because this is a federal constitutional amendment, Texas cannot pass a law denying 18, 19, and 20-year-old citizens the right to vote. The federal amendment is supreme. The States' Rights Position - the view of American federalism that holds that the Constitution created a system of dual sovereignty in which the national government and the state governments are sovereign in their own spheres. This argument focuses on "duel federalism," which states that the powers of the states and the national government are neatly separated like the sections of a layer cake. For example, the federal Constitution does not address whether states can restrict voting rights to those convicted of serious, felony, crimes. Because it is silent on this issue, Texas is allowed to restrict the voting rights of those convicted of felonies. If the federal government ever passed a law or constitutional amendment giving felons the right to vote, the Texas law prohibiting felons the right to vote would become void. NATIONAL GRANTS-in-AID to the STATES: Grants-in-aid are federal funds allocated to states and local governments. There are two basic types of grants - categorical, and block. Categorical grants - federal aid to states and localities clearly specifying what the money can be used for. The federal government generally favors categorical grants because they have the most control over how this money is spent by the states. For example, the federal government could offer Texas a categorical grant to be used for technology in the classroom for elementary schools. If the grant was this specific, Texas could not use the funds for technological improvements in high schools or for books in elementary schools. Block grants - federal grants to the states to be used for general activities. States prefer block grants because they give the states more discretion over how the funds are used. For example, if the federal government gave Texas a block grant to be used for educational purposes, Texas could spend the money on anything related to education - new desks in elementary schools, computers for junior high schools, books for high schools, etc. DEBATES ABOUT FEDERAL MONEY & CONTROL: Many contemporary facets of federalism involve questions of money and control. Conditions on aid - require states to spend grant money in certain ways if they want to receive federal funding. The federal government can also force states to adopt new laws as a condition of aid. For example, the federal government withheld a portion of states' highway funds on the condition they increase the drinking age to 21. States that resisted lost highway funds used for repair and upkeep. Over the course of several years all 50 states eventually increased their drinking age to 21. Unfunded mandates - require the states to carry out certain policies, even when little or no national government aid is involved. For obvious reasons, states do not like unfunded mandates. One example of an unfunded mandate is former the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act mandates that schools implement policies and procedures but did not supply funds to do so - the states had to pay the expenditures out of their general revenues. Matching fund requirements - the legislative provision that the national government will provide grant money for an activity on condition that the state or local government involved supply a certain percentage of the total money required for the activity. The highway funds discussed previously are an example of matching fund requirements. The federal government supplies 90 percent of the funds and states must supply ten percent of the funds. Given all the hype surrounding the importance of federal money used by states, you might think it constitutes a large portion of state revenues. You'd be wrong. Although state and local governments in Texas receive billions in federal funds annually, federal aid only accounts for about 15 percent of combined state and local revenue in the state. But it's an important 15 percent. Without this federal money, Texas would be forced to generate the revenue by increasing taxes, fees, fines, etc. This would not be accepted well by Texans. Therefore, Texas will continue to put up with federal conditions.

Public Opinion - Public opinion is the aggregate of individual opinions on government, elected officials, policy, etc. When a public opinion poll is taken, a random sample of (usually) between 1200 to 1500 respondents responds to a series of questions designed to measure some concept or concepts. Take a look at some common public opinion questions. Each person (or respondent) provides answers based on their attitudes, values, and beliefs. The collection of these three - attitudes, values, and beliefs - is called ideology. Think of ideology as a series of points (or dots) on a line. At one end of the line you'll find conservative ideology (often nicknamed the right). At the other end you'll find liberal ideology (often nicknamed the left). Not sure what each stands for? In terms of policy, conservatives are more likely to favor gun rights, tax cuts, and less government, while liberals typically hold opposite views. Again, if we are thinking of ideology as a series of points on a line, very few folks would have an ideology that placed their point (dot) right above conservative or liberal. Most folks hold some conservative views and some liberal views. Public opinion tries to sort all of this out and make predictions based on the answers provided. Keep in mind that while conservative and liberal map roughly onto our two dominant political parties, ideology is not synonymous with partisanship. Okay, now for a short sidebar based on questions I've received in previous semesters. It is important to differentiate between two definitions of the word wrong. Definition 1: wrong = untrue, inaccurate, or false - "I gave the wrong answer." Definition 2: wrong = unjust, immoral, dishonest, or undesirable - "Corruption is wrong." In light of these definitions, when someone labels an opinion as wrong, they are providing little information about their critique. Do you mean the opinion is factually inaccurate or immoral? Then say so. Now back to public opinion. Democracy & Public Opinion - Here are some definitions and concepts to know and understand. Beliefs: individual's views about the fundamental nature of human beings, society, and economy. Attitudes: individual's views about public policies, political parties, candidates, government institutions, and public officials. Values: individual's views about right and wrong. Public opinion: the political attitudes expressed by ordinary citizens Evaluating democracy: how closely does government policy correspond to the expressed wishes of its citizens? Many leading political theorists doubt the wisdom of the public. The Founding Fathers certainly did. This is because modern survey research shows ignorance and apathy in the public - meaning people don't know much and they don't care much. A political scientist named Phillip Converse, after researching changing public opinion among the same individuals in panel surveys (a panel survey interviews the same group of people several times over a prolonged period of time), coined the term "non-attitudes" to describe respondents. What he meant by non-attitudes was that some people simply don't have an opinion about certain issues. Because they don't have an opinion, they may answer questions differently each time they are asked. Measuring Political Knowledge - Although there are no wrong opinions, we know that political knowledge (not the same thing as education) can effect public opinion. There are many ways to measure political knowledge. Two political scientists (Delli Carpini and Keeter) have developed five questions that can be used to accurately measure political knowledge. They are: Which political party currently controls the House of Representatives? What percentage vote is needed by the House and Senate to override a presidential veto? Which of the two main political parties (Democrat or Republican) is considered the more conservative of the two? Who has the final say in whether or not a law is constitutional? The President The Congress The Supreme Court Voters What job or political office does Joe Biden hold? Four of these five questions are open-ended (respondent must provide an answer without a list to select from) and the fourth question is forced-choice (much like exams for this class). Obviously, open-ended questions are harder to answer and a respondent has a 25% chance of guessing the correct answer for number four. What percentage of the American people do you think answer all five questions correct? How many can you answer? To the first question, only about 20% answer all five correct. To the second question, the answers are: 1) Republicans, 2) 2/3, 3) Republican, 4) Supreme Court, and 5) Vice president. How'd you do? Measuring Public Opinion - The views of letter writers, rally audiences, and callers on radio talk shows do not represent the public as a whole. This is because people who engage in these activities aren't your average American. Engaging in these activities suggests they have a particular interest in it. Measuring public opinion by measuring only folks with high levels of engagement introduces systematic bias. We never want systematic bias entering into a survey. These folks might be selected to participate in a survey and that would be fine as long as the sample was selected by a probability method. Probability samples contain random error, which is okay; they do not contain systematic error. Most of the guesswork can now be eliminated by conducting an opinion poll or sample survey In order to evaluate public opinion polls/surveys we should ask three questions: Who is questioned? In other words, was the sample selected randomly or is there systematic bias? How are they asked? In other words, is everyone asked the same questions and in the same way? What questions are they asked? In other words, are the questions biased in any manner? In order for a poll to be reliable, it must have: Proper question wording - no leading (questions designed to get the response the surveyor wants) or double-barreled questions (questions that require respondent to provide one answer to two or more questions asked as one question). An accurate sample (a sample is a subset of the population we use to make inferences about the population in general): random selection (to avoid systematic bias) and sample size (the larger the sample, the more representative it is). Now for some examples. Leading question - Should the legal system continue to go easy on convicted felons? This question would lead a respondent to answer "no." Double-barreled question - Do you think that taxes should be raised and government spending cut? A respondent might want taxes and government spending cut. This question doesn't allow for that option. There are some emerging problems in political polling. First, there has been a decreased willingness of Americans to participate in surveys. Since the "do not call list" came out about 15 years ago, people tend to think survey companies are violating the list (they aren't) and refuse to take part. There is also increased use of screening and subsequently not answering pollster calls. People can't be questioned if they don't answer the phone. A relatively new issue is the difficulty of surveying people who rely on cell phones. For reputable survey organizations, the only cost to the respondent for taking the survey is time. Since people pay for cell phone minutes, surveying someone on a cell phone could cost the respondent money and time. Scientific Samples: Today, we can use a random sample of 1,200-1,500 people to gauge the opinion of the entire nation. As long as the sample was chosen randomly (no systematic error), the results will accurately reflect the nation's public opinion within a margin of error. Margin of Error: Every poll has a confidence interval. Accurately reported it will say something like "± 3% with a 95% confidence level." As the size of the random sample increases, the margin of error decreases. This is because larger samples are more representative and, as such, have less error. National samples, as stated above, usually have sample sizes between 1,200 to 1,500 respondents. A sample this size has a margin of error of about ± 3%. The "±" means results could be that percent higher or lower than the results indicate. For example, if a poll shows a candidate having the support of 47% of respondents with ± 3%, this means the candidate's support is (most likely) between 50% and 44%. But there is a five percent chance the results are outside the margin of error. This brings us to the confidence interval. Confidence Interval: The industry standard is a 95% confidence interval; this information is rarely provided when survey results are reported, but it is assumed to be 95% unless otherwise stated. What this means is that there's a five percent chance that the results are outside the margin of error. Using the 47% example above, there would be a five percent chance that the candidate's support was higher than 50% or lower than 44%. The confidence interval isn't affected by sample size but the larger the sample gets, the less likely it is that the results would fall outside the margin of error.

Social Desirability: There are many aspects of the survey process that can affect the answers respondents provide. A major issue is social desirability (SD) - Respondents shaping their responses based on the sex, race (or perceived race), of the person asking the question or on the social "norms" surrounding the issue. SD based on sex can occur when a woman is asking the questions. For example, we know that more people will support increasing breast cancer research dollars when a woman asks the question. Why? Because it would seem uncaring to tell a woman, who could potentially get breast cancer, that you didn't want to increase research dollars associated with that issue. The same thing applies when a black person is asking whether the respondent support affirmative action, which is a government program designed to help minorities get jobs and an education. Agreeability Bias: A lot of times surveys use agree/disagree questions - Do you agree or disagree that taxes should be decreased? This might not seem like a problem question, but it can be. This is because people prefer to agree rather than disagree. Respondents tend to consistently agree on agree/disagree questions while not seriously reading the questions. Response Choice Order: When questions are read aloud to respondents they tend to choose among the last few options - called the recency effect. When questions are read by the respondent they tend to choose among the early options - called the primacy effect. Because most modern surveys are administered over the phone with the interviewer asking questions and recording responses on a computer, these two problems can be reduced by randomizing the response categories for each respondent. As long as it is done randomly (not systematically) and every respondent is read the same options, this is the normal practice. Learning Political Beliefs & Attitudes - Throughout life there are many things that help shape our political beliefs and attitudes. Some of the major contributing factors are: Family - We inherit most of our political attitudes from our parents (or primary caregivers). This isn't surprising given this is where the socialization process begins. Most of us, believe it or not, will eventually adopt our parent's ideology (liberal, conservative, or some combination of the two) and their party identification (Democrat, Independent, or Republican). Primary and Secondary Education - It is at these levels of education that we socialize outside the family unit and are introduced to our peer group. We also typically encounter a more diverse environment including people of different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. Through these encounters, we begin to process and reconcile differing opinions. Popular culture - The television shows we watch, the movies we see, and the music we listen to all impact our opinions. College education - College has a liberalizing impact on students. Whether it's the subject matter, the professors, or both, students who attend college generally shift to the left. Not all students shift left though. I'm in the process of adding more information about research on this trend into the lesson. Major events - Events like the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, and 9/11 can, and do socialize us. For example, people who lived through the Great Depression were/are much more supportive of government intervention in economic issues. Marriage - Where college may liberalize students, marriage tends to have the opposite impact. People become more conservative when they get married. Several factors contribute to this including income, children, and home ownership being the most influential. If both individuals work, getting married will increase their income and put them in higher tax brackets, which increases the amount of taxes they pay. Having children makes them more concerned with the education system and exposes them to the system's problems. Owning a home gives them a stake in the community. All of these things tend to make married people more conservative. Retirement - People who reach retirement tend to be more conservative and critical of the government. Many of them, however, are dependent on the government for Social Security and Medicare benefits. Through these programs, the retired population interacts with the government more than many other population subgroups. How People Differ - Although it is possible to discuss American public opinion as a collective whole, there are important distinctions among different sorts of people in different circumstances. Some of the important distinctions are revealed by polling data include: Race and ethnicity: African Americans frequently self-identify and vote as Democrats at a high rate (90% vote Democrat); Hispanics often self-identify and vote as conservative Democrats (pro-life, anti-gay Democrats); Asian Americans tend to self-identify as Republican; and whites lean Republican. The use of the term lean, here, is important. Lean refers to folks who do not necessarily self-identify with a particular party, but share some of its stated policy preferences. Religion: Catholics historically identified and voted as Democrats, but lean Republican today; Jews frequently self-identify and vote as Democrats (70% vote Democrat); Protestants lean Republican with Evangelicals more readily self-identifying and voting Republican; and Atheists self-identify and vote as Democrats. Region: The South and mid-West are conservative areas; West and Northeast are more liberal areas. Social class: The lower social class consistently self-identifies as Democrat; the middle-class is split between the two parties, but leans Republican; and the upper-class leans Republican. Education: The more educated are more likely to participate in politics and are more tolerant. Sex: Polling responses indicate women are less knowledgeable and less interested in politics than their male counterparts. Women are more likely to self-identify and vote as Democrats than their male counterparts. Age: People over age 55 are more likely to self-identify as Independents. Government's Role - The role that people believe government should play in our lives is largely based on the individual's ideology. For example: Economic conservatives: Emphasize economic liberty and freedom from government interference. Economic liberals: Favor government regulation of business and government spending for social programs. Social conservatives: Favor traditional social values; oppose abortion and gay rights. Social liberals: Favor civil liberties, abortion rights, and alternative lifestyles. See KTR, pgs. 27-29 for a helpful diagram. Policy Preferences - In a democracy, government is charged with being responsive to the public's will. The government should do what the citizens want it to do; it should follow citizens' policy preferences. There's just one small problem (actually, there are a few problems, but we'll focus on one). Americans are split on major issues! We disagree about nearly everything from tax rates, to abortion regulations, to education policy, to foreign aid. Given these differences, it can be difficult for government to determine the public's opinion, the public's will. Is Government Responsive to Public Opinion? Yes, it is: Examples include the end of Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A variety of studies show that policy coincides with public opinion most of the time. Especially if there is consensus among the public. No, it's not: Often public opinion coincides with policy, but does not actually cause policy. Government may shape public opinion from the top down. Finally, as when we discussed the Tonkin Gulf incident earlier, government might try to manipulate public opinion. Overall, public opinion seems to play an important role in policy-making, but so do a range of other political actors and institutions. The true influence of public opinion is probably less than statistical studies suggest. And the influence of public opinion may vary depending on issue and its context.

What difference does federalism make

a national government that could take effective action restore economic stability and regulate disputes among the states while allowing the states autonomy flexibility when it comes to experimentation with public policy helpful when congress cannot or will not act means that there is real power sharing between the national government and the states

disadvantages of federalism

all economies of scale are lost federalism permits and encourages local prejudices to find their way into any law

Party organization-electioneering

electioneering the process of getting a person elected to public office

growth of national governements power

john marshall civil war new deal civil rights movement 14th amendment

HOW GOVERNMENT INFLUENCES THE STATES PAGE 88

no national government categorical grant-federal funds provided for a specific pupose restricted by detailed instructions, regulations, and compliance standarads most popular block grant- federal funds porvided for a broad purpose unrestricted by detailed requirements and regulations unfunded mandate- a federal order mandating that states operate and pay for a program created at the national level

mcculloch c maryland

sup court ruling 1819 confirming the supremacy of the national over state government

gibbons vs ogden

supreme court ruling establishing nation authority over interstate business

CONFEDERAL systems governments in which local units hold all the power

the central government is dependent on them for their existence AMERICA UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION UNITED NATIONS EUROPEAN UNION

FACTORS CAUSED A BALANCE IN POWERS

the fact that the constitution was kept vague the role given to the supreme court to step in and interpret what it think the constitution really means when conflict arises over which level of government should have the final say on an issue nation growing so quickly

pluralist democracy

the idea that the individuals can find their political strength only in numbers by joining with other like minded people to get the representation that they want

effects of federalism

we pay taxes to be spent on school and welfare and highways