Forums

2a. Why should a poll be scientific rather than informal? What factors make a good poll (or what can make a poll more accurate)? Explain.

A poll should be scientific rather than informal for many reasons. Informal polls "informally collect opinions of non-random population or group (6.2)." Polls are supposed to teach, inform, and sway an individual's opinions, learning, and views on different topics. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of a poll is to gather as much accurate information as possible. "In order to get a reliable sample, the magic number for pollsters is somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 (06:32)." Scientific polls do this, gathering a group of people that contains various genders, races, and ages instead of staying in a specific group of people. Informal polls are known for generalizing information and selection bias which can cause issues. "The classic example of a selection bias error was the 1936 Literary Digest poll that predicted Alf Landon would defeat F.D.R. It turns out that Literary Digest's readership were disproportionately wealthy and Republican (07:15)." A good poll will have polling dates, the number of respondents, the margin of error, and population samples to show scientific reliability. It is also important to check and see when the poll was taken and how clear and unbiased it is. You must make an educated guess when looking at a poll to determine how reliable it is.

1a. What core values and beliefs led to the American Revolution and the writing of the Articles of Confederation? How do these values and beliefs affect American politics today?

According to the textbook, "The belief that government should not deprive people of their liberties and should be restricted in its power over citizens' lives was an important factor in the controversial decision by the American colonies to declare independence from England in 1776 (2.1)." The colonists were tired of being taxed without consent, given no representation in the government, no right to a trial by jury, and deprived of their right to self-government. They believed that they should have rights and were prepared to fight for them. They wanted a nation that they, as citizens, would not be deprived of their basic human rights. Therefore, their desire to have basic human rights led to the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation were created to control the power of the new government they had created. Many people feared that the freedom and rights they fought for would be taken away by the new government, so they restricted its powers. The textbook states "Many, however, feared that a nation as large as the United States could not be ruled effectively as a republic. Many also worried that even a government of representatives elected by the people might become too powerful and overbearing (2.2)." Due too the fear that the government would become to powerful and abuse the rights of citizens, they created a central government that was extremely limited. These values and beliefs affect American politics in a few ways. Politics are still related to having basic human rights. "All Americans, however, desired that the government not intrude upon people's rights to life, liberty, and property without reason (2.3)." Some basic human rights are gay marriage, transgender rights, the right to vote, and many others. These values and beliefs are the pillars of American politics and they have created a system that allows citizens to decide the government they want.

2a. From the textbook and video (meaning I expect to see support from the book and video): Why is citizen engagement necessary for a democracy to function? Or is engagement necessary to democracy?

According to the textbook, the definition of democracy is literally "a form of government where political power rests in the hands of the people". Citizen engagement is necessary for a democracy to function because the power rests within the people. Citizens use their right to vote for electives to be in government. If it was election day and not a single person voted, how would our government work?

1a. The framers of the Constitution designed the Senate to filter the output of the sometimes hasty House. Do you think this was a wise idea? Why or why not?

After centuries of living with the same government, the same rules, the same laws(with adjustments and additions of course), the layout of our government has worked in good ways and bad ways. The United States Senate(upper house) and the United States House of Representatives(lower house) work together and form the United States legislative body. When you compare the Senate to the House of Representatives, we can see that the House resembles and follows public opinions and the Senate is not as influenced by the public. I think the design was a wise decision because the Senate more so limits the House than filters it. The framers created the Senate and House like this to make altering and adding laws difficult. The textbook states three important and related functions as a result of this. "First, the difficulty of passing legislation through both houses makes it less likely, though hardly impossible, that the Congress will act on fleeting instincts or without the necessary deliberation. Second, the bicameral system ensures that large-scale dramatic reform is exceptionally difficult to pass and that the status quo is more likely to win the day. Third, the bicameral system makes it difficult for a single faction or interest group to enact laws and restrictions that would unfairly favor it (11.1)." The states used to be seen more independently then they are seen now. Originally, senators were chosen by state legislatures and not voters. However, "in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was approved, which allowed for senators to be elected by popular vote in each state. Seats in the House of Representatives are distributed among the states based on each state's population and each member of the House is elected by voters in a specific congressional district (11.1)." The United States was completely different. State independence is less prominent, slavery is nonexistent in America, and the Senate is chosen my popular vote. So yes, the idea was a wise idea. It allows balance among states. These two houses work together to prevent power from being unequally distributed and bills being passed without thought.

1a. Outline several different ways people are politically socialized.

"Political socialization is the process by which we are trained to understand and join a country's political world, and, like most forms of socialization, it starts when we are very young (6.1)." People form ideas about politics and obtain political views based on the education system, friends and family, and events. For example, if a child grows up in a democratic household, they are most likely to become registered democrats, however, if a child grows up in a republican household, they are most likely to become a republican. "Both early and recent findings suggest that children adopt some of the political beliefs and attitudes of their parents (6.1)." Different ways people are politically socialized are families, media, peers, religions, and work. From their first day of school and to their last, students are heavily socialized in school. "The early introduction is often broad and thematic, covering explorers, presidents, victories, and symbols, but generally the lessons are idealized and do not discuss many of the specific problems or controversies connected with historical figures and moments (6.1)." Students are socialized so they learn to respect the government, obey the request of police, and fire fighters, and also follow rules and laws As students age into higher grades, like high school and college, they are taught more complex topics so they learn how the economy around them works. The socialization in the educational system students' readies students so they can make decisions and participate as members of the political society. "Religion leaders often teach on matters of life, death, punishment, and obligation, which translate into views on political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and military involvement abroad (6.1)." Many people are socialized to adopt beliefs that change their politics. Many political candidates speak at religious buildings and centers. People are also socialized by their friends. This is because lots of people gain information from their friends due to interests and trust. "Information transmitted through social media like Facebook is also likely to have a socializing effect. Friends "like" articles and information, sharing their political beliefs and information with one another (6.1)." Another big form of socialization is the media. People are socialized by what they read and hear from social media platforms, newspapers, and the radio. They provide a majority of the information a person can get, and so people are prone to listen to them. "Another way the media socializes audiences is through framing or choosing the way information is presented. Framing can affect the way an event or story is perceived (6.1)." Sometimes the media frames an event and chooses how the information is presented, to make one party look bad and the other look good. There are so many instances of this that people miss because most people believe what the media says.

1b. What does the trend toward descriptive representation suggest about what constituents value in their legislature? How might Congress overcome the fact that such representation does not always best serve constituents' interests?

. First off, descriptive representation is "the extent to which a body of representatives represents the descriptive characteristics of their constituencies, such as class, race, ethnicity, and gender (11 Key Terms)." The trend towards descriptive representation suggests that constituents value specific things in legislature because of class, race, gender, and ethnicity. It also may suggest that constituents want representatives to be similar to them. This can be a good and bad thing. A majority of the government is made up of white males, specifically Congress. Therefore, if any of these individuals believed in descriptive representation, they would be concerned with what is better for white males. Congress should realize that since everyone was varying views, this representation does not serve the needs of all the voters to the fullest degree. Not all women have similar views as one another and not all males have the same views as one another. The same goes for other races, genders, and ethnicities. Congress can overcome the fact that representation does not always serve the constituents interest by focusing on outcome, rather than trying to please constituents with similarities. There should be more diversity in Congress and they should try to incorporate minority groups and women. I know it is not as simple as just doing it, but I do not think there are many ways Congress can overcome this without making big changes.

2b. Which article do you find more convincing? Why?

. I found the article written by Lee Drutman more convincing. I think the layout of the article and the information provided was more appealing to me. The article provide graphs and more information to back up there statement. I also liked how it listed issues on why creating a third party will be difficult even though more than half of Americans support the idea. Although the other article backed up its side with facts and example, I think that Drutman made a more appealing and convincing statement.

1a. If you had to define the poverty line, what would you expect people to be able to afford just above that line? For those below that line, what programs should the government offer to improve quality of life?

1a. If I was to define the poverty line, I would say those just above the line should be able to afford housing, food, healthcare. It may seem like a lot, but if you can't afford a house, you can't live anywhere. Without food and healthcare, you can starve, get sick, and die. People just above the poverty line should also be able to pay electricity, water, and medical bills if necessary. If you can't make monthly payments on your bills, you will end up being in debt. A person just above the poverty line should be able to buy things that are necessary to living. Healthcare, food and housing are necessities to live a healthy, successful, and happy life. The government should instigate programs that can supply healthcare, housing, and food to those who can not get it. "Before passage of the ACA (2010), which expanded health care coverage to millions, and of the HCERA (2010), more than 50 percent of all health care expenditures in the United States already came from federal government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (16.1)." Another thing (the government already provides) is food stamps. Food stamps are an important thing that the government provides to low-income families and individuals. Food stamps allow people to get food without having money. Healthcare programs are important. Along with healthcare programs, there are policies, like the redistributive policy and regulatory policy. The redistributive policy is "a policy in which costs are born by a relatively small number of groups or individuals, but benefits are expected to be enjoyed by a different group in society (16, Key Terms)." This type of policy redistributes resources from one group to another in society. This is called the Robin Hood effect, meaning the wealthy and middle-class pay taxes and into the federal tax base. This money is taken and put into programs that fund low-income families and individuals. The regulatory policy is "a policy that regulates companies and organizations in a way that protects the public (16, Key Terms)." This type of policy is effective for controlling and protecting the public and common resources.

1a. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual than are the elected branches of the government?

1a. The court system, which includes the U.S Supreme Court and state supreme courts, is better suited to protect the individual than elected branches of the government in a few different ways. When reviewing legislation or finding actions of other branches unconstitutional, the courts may wield control over many, they became partly relevant when a person or community comes before they feel that there has been a wrong. If a citizen feels that they have been wronged, they can approach institutional venues for assistance in support and change. According to the textbook, "Organizing protests, garnering special interest group support, and changing laws through the legislative and executive branches are all possible, but an individual is most likely to find the courts especially well-suited to analyzing the particulars of his or her case (13.1)." The courts are more likely to consider an individual's case and what happened, while elected branches of the government are less likely too. Court cases are on group versus the other and it is up to the impartial person or group to determine which party wins the case. The court system is most useful when cases touch on constitutional rights. An example of this is taken from the textbook. Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, was denied a job because her headscarf violated the companies dress code. The court ruled her rights were violated and she could sue the store for monetary damages. The court ruled that the store violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (13.1). Rulings similar to this are important to people in minority groups and the courts bend to individuals needs better than branches of government. The court system is also willing to handle issues that the other branches won't deal with. The courts consider cases with narrower questions and don't just generalize every case. They are able to focus more closely than other government branches. For example, health care. A simplified example is taken from section 13.1 of the textbook. Obamacare was excepted by some and denounced by others, and those who opposed it understand that a repeal would not happen soon looked to the courts for help. With a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court upheld health care law as an extension of Congress's power to tax.

1a. What are the three most important foreign policy issues facing the United States today? Why?

1a. The three most important foreign policy issues that the U.S is facing today are protecting the United States and it's citizens, preserving access to resources and markets, and maintain balance of power in the world. Also, the textbook lists four, and the fourth one is the protection of human rights and democracy. Protecting the United States and it's citizens is one of the most important foreign policies. Whether citizens are in the United States or in a different country, it is the main goal of the United States to protect it's citizens. In relation "to this security goal is the aim of protecting the country's allies, or countries with which the United States is friendly and mutually supportive (17.1)." The United States protects it's citizens from dangers and threats, for example, military threats from terrorists and other nations as well as economic threats like high tariffs and boycotts. Preserving access to resources and markets is another important foreign policy. Resources, such as oil, wood, and other economic resources, such as domestic infrastructure projects like building weapon systems and bridges. It is important to maintain access to international marketplace so that foreign goods can be brought into America. Marinating a balance of power is also an important foreign policy. Having a balance of power "means no one nation or region is much more powerful militarily than are the countries of the rest of the world (17.1)." Balance of power is important for stability and dual powers.

1a. In what ways might the patronage system be made more efficient?

1a. The use of state resources to reward individuals for their political support is patronage. Patronage has the advantage of allowing political loyalty to function by making the government responsive to the electorate and keeping the election turnout robust. However, the system had its faults. People who wanted civil service jobs vowed their political allegiance to a patron and supported them with the position they sought. This focused power and resources to perpetuate the system. The system was replaced and "criticism of the spoils system grew, especially in the mid-1870s, after numerous scandals rocked the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant (15.1)." The system affected bureaucracy in the late nineteenth century and the need for civil service reform was more prominent. Some supported the system were those who held positions and those who were against it argued that legislation was needed to ensure jobs. That patronage system could be made more efficient if patrons were equal and did not have more of a voice than people and other patrons. There could also be different practices in place to ensure fewer competitions. "The act established the Civil Service Commission, a centralized agency charged with ensuring that the federal government's selection, retention, and promotion practices were based on open, competitive examinations in a merit system (15.1)." President Woodrow Wilson, consider the father of public administration, acknowledged that separation of politics and administration was ideal but not necessary.

1a.What are the advantages and disadvantages of having so many levels of subnational governments in the United States? Explain.

1a. There are many advantages and disadvantages to have a lot of subnational governments. Let's start with the advantages. Advantage to having so many levels government is protecting the American people from chaos and corruption. No system can have too much power and each has the ability to focus on its own duties. The framers formed the government so powers would be equally divided with "the national government had its core duties, the state governments had their duties, and other duties were shared equally between them (14.1)." The framers respect all forms of the government: federal, state, and national. The national government was given powered that stem from article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. It provided the authority to make laws that are necessary, such as healthcare and tax laws. Expressed powers were given to Congress and the president. States were given the ability to establish local governments and a account for function, responsibilities, and structure in these governments. An advantage of all these levels of government and divisions between them is that the needs of the people are meted in a more efficient way. The disadvantages of a government with a lot of subnational governments is lack on control, organization, and passing laws takes long periods of time. As learned in previous chapters, we know that to pass a law, it can take weeks, months, and even years for laws to pass due to the fact that so many levels of government are required to pass them. Another disadvantage to having a lot of subnational governments is that different levels of government can not provide the same services that higher levels of government. Local governments may not have the funds and staff/volunteers to rebuild and keep communities running. Some local governments are restrained by boundaries that state and national government provides, which further limits local governments from working properly. The following is an example taken from the textbook: "Detroit filed for bankruptcy due to massive debt obligations and demands for repayment that it could not meet due to a perfect storm of economic and democratic factors. The city owed money to investors who had loaned it money, and it had liabilities resulting from its failure to fulfill its pension and healthcare obligations to city workers. The bankruptcy allowed the city time to develop an exit strategy and negotiate with creditors and union representatives in an effort to restructure its debt load (14.1)." Although having many levels of government is beneficial to protecting the people, there are quite a few disadvantages.

1b.Is it preferable for representatives in the state legislature to behave as trustees or as delegates? Why?

1b. A delegate represents the wishes of those who elected them to office and ignores their personal beliefs and interests. A trustee thinks they have been selected to exercise their own judgements because they have time and expertise to study and understand an issue. Basically, a delegate votes for the people and trustees vote based on their own opinions and beliefs. A trustee is willing to vote against the desire of people if they believe it is the right decision. This means "a trustee will also be more likely to vote his or her conscience on issues that are personal to him or her, such as on same-sex marriage or abortion rights (14.3)." Both trustees and delegates have benefits and are useful in different situations. Trustees usually consider all possibilities and formulate their own opinion. Although a trustee is usually more informed, they usually ignore what people have to say and they do what they want. Opposite of a trustee, a delegate usually does what the people want. Delegates could be bad because they usually do what they people want, and what the people want could be bad. Trustees could be bad because they usually do what they think is right. I'm torn on this question because I think both are equally beneficial and there should be a balance between the to. If a state was pushing for same-sex marriage while the representative is against it, so he would push for no same-sex marriage. I think a trustee would be a better choice because they are willing to change their opinion, while a delegate sticks to the wishes of those who elected them.

1b. Which model of bureaucracy best explains the way the government currently operates? Why?

1b. I think the best way to explain the way the government currently operates is the Monopolistic Model. Proponents of this model recognize the similarities between bureaucracy and private monopoly. A lot of services are accessed through a specific corporation and there are no other alternatives to accessing what a specific service provides. For example, other than the Bureau of Consular Affairs "there is no other organization from which a U.S. citizen can legitimately request and receive a passport (15.3)." The same goes for registering a car and getting a licensee. No competition, no rush, and no change. A lot of services are only accessible through one corporation, like IRS and DMV. Another example can be the internet and phone companies. Smaller towns usually have one option for internet, therefore, no matter how expensive your bill is, you have no choice but to pay it. You can't change your service because it's the only service available.

1b. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to balance its budget? Why or why not?

1b. No, it is not realistic to expect the U.S government to balance its budget. Budgets can be difficult when dividing up money into categories and organizations. These categories are mandatory and discretionary. The larges category is mandatory spending, which consists of 56% of federal expenditures in 2017. In mandatory spending, the organizations and programs are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. In 2017, Social Security cost the United States 939 billion, and Medicare and Medicaid cost 966 billion (Figure 16.16). These numbers vary and are hard to estimate because income and disability payments are difficult to estimate. Although a budget is obviously important, it is difficult to predict discretionary and mandatory spending. I also think the U.S government should focus more on the national debt, which was nineteen trillion dollars of debt in 2015. Although balancing the budget is a major goal, democratic and republican parties disagree on how to accomplish the task. This is because "If Congress were to try to balance the budget only through discretionary spending, it would need to cut about one-third of spending on programs like defense, higher education, agriculture, police enforcement, transportation, and general government operations (16.5)." I think that although balancing its budget is important, it may be difficult due to mandatory spendings like Social Security and Medicare.

1b. What should be the most important considerations when filling judge and justice positions at the federal level? Why?

1b. Supposedly, when judges are selected for justice positions, they are selected carefully. At a federal level the president will nominate a candidate to a justice position and the nominee has to get majority vote in the U.S Senate. Some important things to consider when filling judge and justice positions at federal level are the individuals understanding of the Constitution, their knowledge of American history, and their ability to separate duty form opinions and bias. It is also important to consider how a justice's decisions are influenced by how they define their rule as a jurist because "some justices believing strongly in judicial activism, or the need to defend individual rights and liberties, and they aim to stop actions and laws by other branches of government that they see as infringing on these rights (13.5)."This is important to consider because a justice that views the job with the perspective of an activist may be more likely to use their power to broaden liberty, justice, and equality. However, some justices believe in judicial restraint, "which leads them to defer decisions (and thus policymaking) to the elected branches of government and stay focused on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights (13.5)." This too is also important to consider because a justice that has this perspective are less likely to decide that laws and actions are unconstitutional and may not focus on individual liberties. The personal beliefs, attitude, and opinions of a justice is something important to consider as well. It is difficult to leave your personal beliefs and opinions outside of work, and justices and judges at federal level are probably not going to leave these beliefs outside the courtroom. This usually leads to presidents choosing judges and justices that reflect their beliefs. From the textbook, I found that the most important things to consider are the beliefs, attitudes, and judicial restraint or judicial activism of an individual. I think that it is also important to consider the knowledge and ability of an individual.

1b. What role has technology played increasing the power and reach of presidents?

1b. Technology has played a crazy role in modern politics. For example, social media. All a president or presidential candidate has to is press a button and then done, they just tweeted to the entire world. It has allowed the president and candidates tor each billions of people so easily. This has also allowed newspapers, websites, and TV channels to constantly talk about and kind of communicate with the president. Years ago, it was difficult for presidents to communicate with the media and reach the people. However, it is as simple as a Tweet now. Our current president, Donald Trump, was taken the use of social media further than any other candidate has. His tweets from twiiter are discussed for months, even years after he tweeted them. Whether his tweets are positive or negative, he gains support and publicity. Another important role of technology is transportation, like airplane's and the Air Force. This allows the presidents campaign in public and out of state. Without transportation, the president and candidates would not be able to travel from California to Maine to campaign. Air Force One carries the president around the nation and world. This gives the president a different ability and allows there power and reach to become more effective. "Both Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s and Harry S. Truman in the 1940s and 1950s used air travel to conduct diplomatic and military business. Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a specific plane, commonly called Air Force One.. (12.4)." Technology has allowed presidents to gain publicity and reach people in a different way than ever though possible

1c.What are some suggested solutions to the anticipated Social Security shortfall? Why haven't these solutions tended to gain support? (the video can be used here as well)

1c. I think one thing that could be a solution to the anticipated Social Security shortfall would be retirement age. Raising the retirement age would save money for the Social Security department. I am aware that this could negatively affect older people, but I think if the retirement age was 69 or 70, it could prevent or slow down the social security shortfall. There would obviously be elderly people that would need to retire early for health reasons, but the number could be lower. The process of retirement could be made longer, which would prevent some from trying to retire. Another solution would be raising taxes on the wealthy. Social security already takes money from people and redistributes it but raising taxes on people with a large income could also prevent the anticipated social security shortfall. According to the video "This program redistributes wealth from younger working people to older retired people (3:42)" and "Social Security also redistributes wealth from richer people to poorer ones (3:49)." I think raising taxes on wealthier people would prevent the anticipated Social Security shortfall. These solutions probably haven't gained support because raising the age limit to retirement could anger people and cause mistakes in the workplace. Raising taxes on wealthier people could cause disagreements, just like raising the age limit of retirement.

1c. Do you think Congress and the president have done enough to protect bureaucratic whistleblowers? Why or why not?

1c. No, I don't think the president and Congress have done enough to protect bureaucratic whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are people who advertise misdeeds committed within a bureaucracy or other agency. When the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, included rights for federal whistleblowers. However, I'm not sure if it is enough. The act's Merit System Protection Board is a board headed by three members appointed by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. It hears complaints, conducts investigations, and institutes protections for bureaucrats that speak out. There have been acts that have to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers like " the whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, which further compelled federal agencies to protect whistleblowers who reasonably perceive that an institution or the people in the institution are acting inappropriately (15.4)." Congress and the president basically have people that get information and do what they want, and there should be more laws and acts to protect them and the information they may withhold.

1c. What factors contributed most to the transformation away from the classic legislative process and toward the new style?

1c. One of the main factors that contributed to this transformation was the budget reforms in the 1970s. The textbook states "According to political scientist Barbara Sinclair, the primary trigger for the shift away from the classic legislative route was the budget reforms of the 1970s (11.5)." Congress was given a framework for making large budget decisions by the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act. This budget mechanism became the mechanism for making comprehensive policy changes in the years that followed. A major benefit that this budget reform provides was that Congress could force a yea or nay vote on the a bill. This helped Congress easily make legislative changes that would have taken long periods of time. Another factor that contributed to the transformation was the expanding power of party leadership over the control of bills. Intensified partisanship, which goes back to the 1980s, was one reason for this particular change. The leadership uses specific rules that guide bills in the legislative process. These now widely used ules restrict debate and option and focus the attention of members. The application of modern filibuster is another factor that has contributed to the transformation of the classic legislative process. "Unlike the traditional filibuster, in which a senator took the floor and held it for as long as possible, the modern filibuster is actually a perversion of the cloture rules adopted to control the filibuster (11.5)." Senators can request cloture before a bill can get a vote when partisanship is high. This is to give the Senate minority power to obstruct if it is necessary.

1c. The shirking of jury duty is a real problem in the United States. Give some reasons for this and suggest what can be done about it.

1c. The first thing that comes to mind is that people are lazy. It's true, everyone is lazy. A person may not want to get out of bed and get ready to go sit in a courtroom for hours. I know I wouldn't want to. It also is a major inconvenience for most people. It takes time and effort, and a lot of Americans do not have time or effort to spare. I know many people that work fours jobs and still can't provide for their family and kids. They can't find a sitter and can't leave a three-month-old alone with an eight-year-old. Also, judging evidence is hard work and can take a chunk out of your life, and like I said, that's very inconvenient. One thing that could be done about the lack Americans showing up to jury duty is increasing the amount of money jurors receive. This may draw some people to the courtroom because many people are desperate for money. However, this could be costly, and people still may not show due to inconvenience and the money still not being worth their time. Another method that would be more effective would be punishing those who fail to show. For example, fining or summoning an individual to court that failed to show up to jury. This would urge people to show up for jury duty because nobody wants more bills to pay. (I couldn't find anywhere in the textbook that talked about the shrinking of jury duty or what could be done about it, so these are my own ideas, and I don't have any quotes from the textbook.)

1c.Do term limits seem to have more advantages or disadvantages? Defend your answer.

1c.I think there are more advantages than disadvantages. One disadvantage is female and minority representation in term-limited and non-term-limited states. Term limits have provided more positions, but there are still challenges for women and minorities who attempt to run for office. According to the textbook "women and minorities are subject to the same term limits as men and given their low numbers among candidates for office (14.4)." However, I feel that different term limits between for minorities and women and men would be unfair, and that should not really be considered a disadvantage. Another disadvantage is power structure between executive and legislative branches. Research shows post-term limits causes legislators to consult with lobbyists and gain information about legislation. Term limits limit state legislators and they feel they have lost power, and this could damage the states legislature ability. Term limits allow new ideas, members, and representation into the government. This allows for corrupt or disliked representation to get out of the government without court hearings to impeach individuals or issues. Term limits also shorten the time someone can serve and reducing elected officials making legislative service their entire career. Some hoped that term limits increase motivation to make good policies in shorter periods of times if members were less focused on reelection. Term limits can also encourage "women, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, members of the minority party, and people with unconventional occupations to run for office because seats would be open more frequently (14.4)." Term limits can prevent corruption, attract members of the community, promote diversity, and get rid of disliked and/or corrupted representatives without complication.

2. From the video Oath of Office--did you learn anything new about the presidents mentioned in this clip? Yes or no, provide explanation.

2. I had no idea of who Lyndon Johnson was. He was responsible for designing what is known as the Great Society legislation. It was for civil rights laws, aid to education, Medicare, and the war on poverty. He escalated America's involvement in Vietnam by increasing the amount of troops. Other than this man, I knew all the stated facts and Presidents in this video (surprisingly).

2. From Marbury vs. Madison: what is so important about the Court's ruling in that case?

2. The ruling in this case is important because it established the idea of judicial review in the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Also, it was the first time that Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. This established the right of the Supreme Court of the United states and said what the Constitution means and what it doesn't mean. This court ruling taught the American government that the Constitution should not be ignored in important political issues. It also "stressed the limitations on governmental power provided by the instrument, and it affirmed the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to decide if and when the political branches of government exceeded their constitutional bounds (3:15)." Since this court ruling, the power of judicial review was expanded and the court has ruled many actions of Congress unconstitutional and extended its power to include review of local and state actions.

2. From Benzine's video, why is bureaucracy necessary? What are some pros and cons of a bureaucracy?

2.A bureaucracy is " a complex structure of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of organization that is employed b all large scale institutions to coordinate the work of their personnel (00:57)." They are made up of people who know a lot about the topic that is being dealt with and they can divide tasks so they can be efficiently handled. According to the video, bureaucracies are efficient. They make it easier to accomplish the task, operate, and fulfill specific functions. Bureaucrat implement the laws that Congress writes, they make and enforce their own rules, and they settle disputes through a process that makes them like courts. Bureaucracies get things done, for example, "like inspecting our meat so we don't get E.coli or Salmonella or Mad Cow Disease (4:22)." Some pros of a bureaucracy are stability, the rulemaking process allowed for popular participation, and they are useful. Some cons of bureaucracy are that once one is made, it's usually permanent, they make their own rules, and positions are filled through competitive exam-based civil service procedures.

2.From the Social Policy video, what were the results of the Clinton administration's welfare reform?

2.In 1996 Bill Clinton pushed welfare reform in Congress which led to the passing of the Personal Responsibility and Opportunity Reconciliation Act (The Welfare Reform Act of 1996). This got rid of Aid to Families with Dependent Children and replaced it with Temporary Aid to Needy Families. This led to restrictions that recipients must meet to get benefits and they can only receive benefits for two years in a row and five years total. This was supposed to encourage people to get off welfare, and according to the video, "It kind of worked. The number of people receiving welfare did decrease and more people did look for and find work (6:56)." However, during the economic downturn in 2001 and 2009, welfare caseloads rose and this suggested that work that people did find was not a stable solution. So, the results of Clinton's reform was different from its goal. It worked at first but it backfired years later(From the information in the video this is what I concluded, but I could be mistaken.)

3. From the song: did you learn anything about the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson? Did you find it an interesting way to learn some political history?

3. I didn't really enjoy it, but I did find it interesting. The song talks about financial debts and the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson. From what I was able to gather and from what I already know, Hamilton wanted to combine debts from all the states and make the debt a national debt. He wanted a central bank to represent the entire nation. Jefferson wanted to keep debts separated in each state because he didn't want debt due to slaves. I did not really learn any new information, but I think this is an interesting and creative way to learn political history.

3. From the Benzine video: State 2 things about the Supreme Court you found interesting and why you found them interesting.

3. One thing about the Supreme Court that I found interesting is a Certiorari. This is a formal request for the Supreme Court to hear your case and what you have to say. I did not find it surprising that a lot of these cases don't get enough federal question. I found it interesting that the justices get to decide what cases they will decide on. This list of cases is called a discussion list. For the judges to hear it, four out of nine justices must approve to hearing it. This discussion is whether or not to grant certiorari. I find it interesting that the Justices get total decision over this. Although unlikely, there could be an important case that they just dismiss because they don't want to hear it. Another thing I found interesting is the Supreme Court cases are usually not unanimous. Although this makes sense, I think that after debating over a topic most would agree with one another. But in realty, a lot of cases are divided five to four. The judges that lose and who did not support the winning side are allowed to write a dissent. An example of this is the Plessy v. Ferguson case, and according to the video "the arguments in a dissent can form the foundation for the majority opinion in a later case, even though it can take 50 years to get from a case like Plessy to Brown v. Board of Education (5:27)."

From 270towin: (keep in mind these questions are written 3 months prior to the election) 3a. The 2020 election is happening this week (vote!). Did any traditionally red or blue states flip? Did a select few states determine the election or was it a landslide? What did that mean in terms of campaigning prior to Tuesday?

3a. Well, currently, as of November 6, the election is still ongoing because ballots are still be counted for. As I am writing this, Nevada, Georgia, and Pennsylvania are all leaning blue. However, I believe that most states have stayed the same so far. Most Democrats and Biden supporters were hoping to take Texas but failed. In 2016's election, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Michigan were red, but are blue in this year's election. I don't think any states have determined the election results. However, I believe Georgia is calling for a recount. Honestly I do not think that will change anything. For the republicans to win, they will need to win Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, and I don't see that happening.

From 270towin: (keep in mind these questions are written 3 months prior to the election) 3b. An old saying states "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation," meaning that Ohio is traditionally key in winning the presidency. In fact, Ohio has voted for the losing candidate only 4 times since the 1860 election, the last time being 1960 (for Richard Nixon vs. JFK). However, Ohio could be heading to dependably Republican. Why might that be, and what does it mean for Ohio in national politics? Did Ohio vote for the winner and is the thought of "dependably Republican" still in play?

3b. Well currently, there is no definte winner, so I can't accurately answer that question. However, I feel that the Democrats will be winning this election, therefore meaning no, Ohio did not vote for the winner. Ohio may be dependably Republican because no Republican has ever won the election without Ohio's vote. I think Ohio could be heading to dependably Republican because in most election results, Ohio is Republican. Ohio may be heading to dependably Republican due to unemployment rates. We are just going to have to wait and see where this election will take us! Maybe the old saying "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation" will be proven false.

2. From the video: Describe how authority was divided. Does it work as designed?

Authority was divided into two different groups that work in different ways. These two groups had different ways of taking in new members, different sizes, and different term lengths. These groups of representatives were created differently from one another so the chance of abuse of authority was lower. Authority was divided due to the worry that surrounded it being abused. They created a powerful central government that made it difficult to add or take away from our laws. Until a law passed in every house of government, no law could be pass. Yes, it does work as it was designed. Although members of the government do have a lot of power, using that power to their advantage is very difficult due to the way framers made adding or removing a piece of legislation.

2a. The articles are examining the same idea, how do they differ?

Both of the articles are about the two party system in the United States, but they still are different from one another. I had a difficult time distinguishing differences between these two articles. However, I noticed that the article written by Lee Drutman and titled "How much longer can the two party system hold?" spoke about electoral reform. The other article, written by Micah L. Sifry and titled "Why America Is Stuck With Only Two Parties" did not speak about this topic at all. Electoral reform would create a system of proportional voting. "Most advanced democracies have some form of proportional voting system that allows for the party system to better reflect the diversity of opinion in the public, and for a broader number of citizens to feel well-represented (Drutman, pg.7)." This not only talks about how electoral reform would be beneficial, but it provides examples as well as challenges. The two challenges it lists are public understanding and politicians. "Our report suggests most Americans don't have much understanding of alternative electoral systems, and don't really make the connection to the ways electoral rules entrench the two-party system that Americans are mostly dissatisfied with (Drutman, pg.7-8)." The other article written by Micah L. Sifry differs from the article Drutman wrote because it focuses more on the ballot. "Here's the underlying problem: the ballot, which was once the property of voters organically organizing themselves into parties, has become the property of state legislatures dominated by the two major parties (Sifry, pg.2)." Republican and Democrat legislatures learned they could use the power of determining who was qualified to be on the ballot to their advantage. They gave themselves automatic lines on the ballot. Although the two articles are examining the same topic, they both focus on different ideas to get there point across.

1d. Briefly explain the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

Civil liberties are limitations on the power of the government and are designed to ensure personal freedoms. "For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit "the free exercise" of religion; the states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, even if politicians and judges think the religion is misguided, blasphemous, or otherwise inappropriate (4.1)." Civil rights guarantee equal treatment by government authorities. "Because of the Constitution's civil rights guarantee, it is unlawful for a school or university run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had separate schools where only students of a certain race or gender were able to study (4.1)." Civil liberties are protections that limit the government's actions and civil rights are actions of the government that create equal conditions for every American citizen. Civil rights are important because they protect minority groups and civil liberties are important because they give individual liberty from the government.

1a. What is the better approach to civil rights—a peaceful, gradual one that focuses on passing laws and winning cases in court, or a radical one that includes direct action and acts of civil disobedience? Why do you consider this to be the better solution?

Civil rights are extremely important, and every person should have the same rights as another. "at the most fundamental level, guarantees by the government that it will treat people equally, particularly people belonging to groups that have historically been denied the same rights and opportunities as others (5.1)." Currently, the statement that all men are created equal is not true. I think that a peaceful and gradual process to approach civil rights is morally and economically better. I think this because a lot of people can be hurt in a radical process that includes civil disobedience. Lives can be turned upside down and people can get hurt and die. However, it is a quicker way to receive civil rights and get the government to take action. Is it the smarter, more civilized option? No. Is it a quicker option? Yes. I think that a radical approach that includes direct action and civil disobedience is USUALLY better. Even though it is less civilized, in the past, almost all peaceful protests that relate to civil rights were ignored. I say almost all because Martin Luther King Jr. organized peaceful protests. Although these protests were not ignored, it did take a while to get his point across. Generally, the courts only take cases that are controversial. "After Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person and was arrested, a group of black women carried out a day-long boycott of Montgomery's public transit system (5.2)." It took Rosa Park's civil disobedience for the court to consider and recognize segregation issues. That is why I think it is better to approach civil rights radically with acts of civil disobedience.

1. From the Political Ideology subpage, outline the difference between Classical Liberalism, New Deal Liberalism, Progressive Liberalism, Conservatism, the Religious Right, Neoconservatism, Radicals, and Pluralism.

Classical Liberalism promotes private property, an unrestrained market economy, the legal system, and freedom. New Deal Liberalism was the belief that the government should protect specific groups of people like farmers, workers, and other sites of people that are important during times of distress. Progressive Liberalism is a type of liberalism that focuses on making social change by regulating the private market. Conservatism describes those who want to maintain the status quo, uphold morality, or conserve money. The Religious Right pertains to being concerned with the deterioration in Judeo-Christian values because of mistaken government and judiciary choices. Neoconservatism was seen as a designation for past New Deal Democrats that became alarmed when they saw their party shift to appease communists. Radicals advocate for a reconstruction of the social order. Pluralism supports diversity in a society that has many interest groups and in a government with lots of authority.

3. From the video: Who were the Freedom Riders? What did Martin Luther King Jr. promote? What happened regarding the Civil Rights movement in the latter half of 1963?

Freedom riders were groups of civil rights activists that protested in the early 1960s. They protested segregation laws for interstate and travel facilities. They protested by traveling throughout the South on scheduled buses. Martin Luther King was an activist and he promoted non-violent protests. He organized a series of peaceful demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1963, he delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech in front of a crowd of 250,000 people. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the context of their character. I have a dream today!" In late 1963 the president submitted a bill to propose the idea that race has no place in American life or law. This led to the march in Washington DC in support of Kennedy's civil rights bill.

1b. What heuristics, or cues, do voters use to pick a presidential candidate? Are these a good way to pick a president?

Heuristics are "shortcuts or rules of thumb (cues) for decision making (6.3)." One of the most common heuristics in voting is political party memberships. Most voters join political parties that are close to their values and beliefs, voting for a candidate that coordinates to their beliefs. For example, "A Republican candidate will likely espouse conservative beliefs, such as smaller government and lower taxes, that are often more appealing to a Republican voter (6.3)." A person is going to base the candidate the pick off of their beliefs and values because if a candidate goes against their beliefs, why would they choose them? Another method is gathering information by researching ad gathering background information before making a decision. There is a lot of information online about candidates, parties, and campaigns and some of it is false. "But many voters are unwilling to spend the necessary time to research and instead vote with incomplete information (6.3)." A lot of voters base their decisions on race, gender socio-economic status, and interest-group affiliation. These factors shape the opinions of voters which changes how they vote. These methods are not a horrible way to pick a president. For example, let's say an individual is against abortion. There may be one presidential candidate who is for abortion and another who is against. However, the candidate who is against wants to take away something necessary for society, like free education or all emergency services. Would you still vote for the presidential candidate who is against abortion because it is your belief? It just is not logical. I think when voting for a presidential candidate you should do lots of research and ignore news programs and commercials about the candidates. You need to form your own opinion and try your best to not base your decision on race, gender, or your personal beliefs, but on what candidate would benefit the country as president.

1b. Was the Bill of Rights a necessary addition to the Constitution? Why or why not?

I believe that the Bill of Rights was a necessary addition to the Constitution. It has been extremely important to American citizens during the last 200 years. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the Constitution and provides individual rights. These rights are the right to bear arms for protection, the right to provide shelter for soldiers in peacetime, the right to trial by jury, the protection from excessive fines and punishment, and a few others. "The liberties of U.S citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights (2.5)." The Bill of Rights covers a few of the basic human rights that many people wanted.

3. From the Constructionists vs. Activists subpage: According to the Judicial Activist article, is activism solely in the realm of liberal leaning Justices? What do conservative Justices typically mean when they maintain the appearance of an original constructionist or originalist? Is any Justice truly not activist? Why or why not?

I feel that this article is geared towards the fact that activism is only in the realm of liberal leaning Justices. Conservative Justices mean that they are interpreting the wishes of the authors when they maintain the appearance of an originalist. These people think that the constitution should be read and then processed with the same historical, political, and social setting as when the document was created. They disagree with the power of the government. Through reading the writers' wishes, conservatives justices have been responsible for maintaining a form of speech that conservatives disagree with. Every Justice is an activist in one way or another. Some justices are committed to the text created by the founding fathers. Other justices push for progressive policies, not wanting to restrain American citizens to the words of the Constitution. Progressive justices left it to the democratic process, allowing citizens to elect representatives that they want. The representative's that they elect address issues that affect their lives. However, conservative Justices sometimes interfere with the democratic process, making them activists as well. They do this by imposing their ideas and twisting the Constitution's text, ignoring what it really says. They lack the concern for how these decisions may affect the majority of Americans.

1c. What do the conditions under which presidents decide to make public pleas suggest about the limits of presidential power?

I think that the conditions under which presidents decide to make public please suggest that presidential power, although it may appear limited, is less limited than we think. Although a president can demand the removal of presidential staff, they can not appoint members of their administration without the confirmation of Senate. The president may exercise the power of pardon without conditions. Our current president has used the pardon in a few cases. According to the textbook, "He set aside sentences for controversial former Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and for former Vice President Dick Cheney's confidante, Scooter Libby.42 It remains to be seen if Trump will pardon the long list of personnel who have been indicted or convicted in the Mueller investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election (12.5)." Presidents can justify the use of executive orders in cases of national security or part of war powers. They can fire and hire military commanders, and use powers as commander in chief to deploy military force. However, I the president needs the support and approval of other members of the government to get anywhere. One area that the president controls all on his own is the power of persuasion. The president can strategize negotiation, compromise, and persuasion to achieve things with Congress. In 1960, a political scientist came forward with a thesis that the power of a president if the power to persuade. The following is taken form section 12.5 of the textbook. "For example, legislative achievements tend to be of greater duration because they are more difficult to overturn or replace, as the case of health care reform under President Barack Obama suggests. Obamacare has faced court cases and repeated (if largely symbolic) attempts to gut it in Congress. Overturning it will take a new president who opposes it, together with a Congress that can pass the dissolving legislation (12.5)."

2a. Olmstead v. United States is different from the other cases presented. How so?

I think the difference between Olmstead v. United States and the other cases presented is that Roy Olmstead was convicted due to illegally obtained conversations. It appears that all of the other cases, like the Carpenter v. United States, legally obtained their information to convict the criminal(s).

1b. How representative are interest groups in the United States? Do you agree that "all active and legitimate groups have the potential to make themselves heard?" Or is this potential an illusion? Explain your answer.

I think the interest groups are pretty representative. Interest groups are pretty representative because they rally, protest, and support their beliefs with actions. However, equal representation in interest groups is not seen due to wealth, education, and other strong predictors of political engagement and social status. Poor and minorities do not have equal conditions as others. Some work two jobs and don't have free time or money to participate, run into financial barriers, and they can not hire expensive lobbying firms to help represent them. "Still, there is a bias in participation and representation, and this bias extends to interest groups as well. For example, when fast food workers across the United States went on strike to demand an increase in their wages, they could do little more than take to the streets bearing signs (10.3)." Although there is unequal representation in interest groups, there is some representation in interest groups in the United States. Yes, I think that all active and legitimate groups have potential to make themselves heard. However, I do not think that all of them are listened too. Interest groups are made up of people who have similar interests and goals. Therefore, together as a group, they are very powerful and influential. However, interest groups that are poorer are less likely to be heard. "For example, as we've seen, wealthy corporate interests have the means to hire in-house lobbyists or high-priced contract lobbyists to represent them. They can also afford to make financial contributions to politicians, which at least may grant them access (10.3)." Although I do agree with the statement that every group should be heard, not every group can be heard.

1b. If you were required to become active in some aspect of a political party, what activity and level of party organization would you choose and why?

If I was required to become active in an aspect of a political party, I would choose the state level organization. A decent amount of political power is in statewide offices and in state-level legislative or judicial bodies. Although all levels of party organization, I think state-level organizations are the most important. This level of party organization allows "for key party functions, such as statewide candidate recruitment and campaign mobilization (9.3)." They elect high ranking officials like the governor, state treasurer, attorney general, and candidates to represent the state and its residents. I think those position are extremely important for the general population. Every state is governed by a person that the occupants elected. If they're were not state level organization, everyone would be directly governed by the government and have no individual state laws. I don't think that would work out or be fair, and that a state level organization is important. I am slightly confused by this question. If the second part of the question is asking what activity I would take on in this level organization, than I would take on the position of creating unity. I think this is dire in government because "as the party transitions from sometimes-contentious nomination battles to the all-important general election (9.3)." It is important to have unity across all members of a group and especially in state party. When creating unity among members of a state party, they help party candidates prepare for state primary elections and caucuses.

2. Looking at the interactive timeline, it is apparent notable events begin in the 1950s and explode in the 1960s. Why then? What conditions made that the time for a concerted civil rights push? You can use whatever sources you find useful in answering this question.

In 1948 President Truman signed Executive order 9981. It declared that there would be equal opportunity for all people despite race. I think this event made people realize that race was an issue that had to be dealt with. However, I feel that the civil rights movement really began in the mid-1950s. One major event that triggered the rest of these was the Montgomery bus boycott. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white male on December 1, 1955. At the time, she probably was tired and just wanted a break. Little did she know, she began one of the most important movements of the century. Conditions that made this time boom with civil rights events was discrimination against women, African Americans, LGBTQ people, and American Indians, dissatisfaction among groups of people that were not straight white males, war, segregation among blacks in whites in the classroom, on the bus, in a public restroom, and churches, and poverty. In 1960, there was the Greensboro sit-in campaign which was a nonviolent protest in which young Africans Americans sat down at a segregated lunch counter and refused to leave until they were serviced. This movement spread to other towns throughout the South and played a crucial role in the Civil Rights Movement.

2b.The cases presented are decided in different ways (even within the same judgement). Briefly outline the bases for each decision, noting differing and dissenting opinions. Some extra searching on your part would be appropriate.

In Olmstead v. United States, Roy Olmstead was convicted for the conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act by possessing, selling, and importing liquor illegally. Federal agents illegally installed wiretaps in his basement to obtain evidence against him. The court decided that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The wiretap conversations as incriminating evidence did not violate any rights. In Carpenter v. United States, four men were arrested for multiple armed robberies. The FBI obtained transactional records because one of the men involved in the series of robberies confessed, giving the FBI cell phone numbers of the other men. Timothy Carpenter was charged with aiding and abetting robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act. Both of these lawsuits are similar because the parties against the United States felt that the fourth amendment was being violated. Both of these decisions were 5-4 with Olmstead v. United States favoring the United States and Carpenter v. United States favoring Carpenter. In Griswold v. Connecticut, Connecticut passed a law banning the use of medical devices, drugs, or other instruments to prevent contraception. A gynecologist opened a birth control clinic located in New Haven. Estelle Griswold was convicted of violating Connecticut law. The court ruled that the Constitution did protect the right of marital privacy when it came to restrictions on contraception. It concurred that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy, and that right was being violated. In Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade. She challenged a Texas law that made abortion illegal unless a doctor decided the woman would die if abortion was not carried out. She made the point that her personal privacy was being invaded and she is supposed to be protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, Fourteenth, and Ninth Amendments. Similar to the other lawsuit, the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to choose an abortion falls within the right to privacy. This lawsuit is similar to the Griswold v. Connecticut since they both deal with abortion and the Fourteenth Amendments. Both of these decisions were 7-2, with Roe v. Wade favoring Jane Roe and Griswold v. Connecticut favoring Griswold.

1a. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

In the federal system, authority is divided between central and state governments. The authority is derived from the people. However, citizens choose who is in the government that governs them. The national government takes care of issues that affect the country as a whole, like national threats and economic prosperity. The state governments are in control of the well-being of their population, education, health care, and other public services that are important to keep the state running. This system requires levels of government that work together. An example can be taken from the textbook, "In the U.S. federal system, all national matters are handled by the federal government, which is led by the president and members of Congress, all of whom are elected by voters across the country. All matters at the subnational level are the responsibility of the fifty states, each headed by an elected governor and legislature (3.1)." Also, another characteristic of all federal systems is a written constitution. This writing cannot be changed without the consent of every subnational government. In the confederation system, authority is concentrated in the states, giving citizens more power. The central government's power relies on the consent of subnational governments. The textbook says, "Under the Articles of Confederation (the first constitution of the United States), states were sovereign and powerful while the national government was subordinate and weak (3.1)." States did not want to give up their power, therefore the national government lacked authority when faced with war debt and other common issues. This was a drawback because the national government was ineffective and powerless because the citizens held all the power. In the unitary system, authority is concentrated in the central government, leaving citizens powerless. A unitary system makes the subnational government depend on the national government. According to the textbook, "...unitary system was centralized to the extent that the national government held the most important levers of power. Since then, power has been gradually decentralized through a process of devolution... (3.1)." A unitary system is controlled by the central government, giving citizens almost no power. A confederation system gives authority to the states, giving citizens almost all of the power. A federal system divides the authority between central and state, giving citizens half of the power.

1a. Are interest groups good or bad for democracy? Defend and explain your answer.

Interest groups are good and bad for democracy, however, I feel that they do more good than bad. A few things about interest groups that are good for democracy are that they band people together, provide representations, aid lawmakers, and facilitate political participation. Interest groups aid lawmakers in a few different ways. They can contact lawmakers to voice disapproval and approval or legislation and encourage members to take action by donating money or contacting lawmakers as well. This is called inside lobbying and outside lobbying. According to the textbook, inside lobbying "takes the interest group's message directly to a government official such as a lawmaker (10.1)." Outside lobbying is " whereby the interest attempts to get its message out to the public (10.1)." Tactics of inside lobbying include testifying in legislative hearing and by helping to draft legislation. Tactics of outside lobbying includes issuing press releases, entering coalitions with other groups, and placing stories and/or articles in the newspaper. The NAACP keeps track of proposed voter-identification bills in state legislatures, contact lawmakers, and encourage group members to take their own action. Interest groups facilitate political participation in different ways. Members become active in a group and work for the organization which then promotes the organization. They sometimes work to increase membership, organize rallies, and inform the public about issues. "For example, following Barack Obama's presidential victory in 2008, the NRA used the election as a rallying cry for its supporters, and it continues to attack the president on the issue of guns, despite the fact that gun rights have in some ways expanded over the course of the Obama presidency (10.1)." Interest groups also bring people together. For example, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). This organization represents Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and people who do not identify with any of those categories.

2. From the video: How does a Bill become law? Detail the various stages.

Just like the video, I will explain the various stages from start to finish. A congressmen, senator, or branch must introduce the proposed law. After the bill has been introduced it will be sent towards a committee. A committee will vote on it and if it is approve, the Senate will set rules on the debate and whether it will be open or closed. If it is approved by the senate, the bill will be senate rules committee, which reports it to the House. According to the video, and important part is that "the exact same bill has to pass both houses before it can go to the president (2:13)." When the second house gets the bill, changes almost always are made and it goes to the conference committee. This committee try's to merge each version of the bill and come up with a compromise bill. Then, they will send this bill back to both houses for another vote. If this compromise bill passes, it will be sent to the president. However, the president may veto the pill or the bill may not be signed or vetoed for ten days. This is only done "when the President doesn't want the law to pass, but for political reasons, doesn't want to veto it either (2:59)." The bill may become a law without the President's signature. In most cases, bills do not become laws. Bills may be refused from the committee it was referred too, the senate refusing to schedule a vote on it, and in some cases, a bill can get a majority vote in both, but the President can still veto it. Usually, bills are killed by Congress just not voting on them or scheduling a vote for them. The above situations are called veto gates. These make it difficult for Congress to work unless there is a vase agreement or the issue is uncontroversial. There are many different ways a bill can become a law and there are many different paths it can take. Sometimes a president may veto a law, and that veto can be rejected.

2. From the Ohio's Gerrymandering video: Are you satisfied with Ohio's current Congressional districts? Why or why not? What do you think of the nonpartisan map?

No, I am not satisfied with Ohio's current Congressional districts. I do not think it is fair to the smaller districts and it takes the power away from the districts with less population. I think the nonpartisan map is well planned and thought out. I think that because it allowed the citizens to take part in how they thing the districts should be divided. It also was less confusing to look at and seemed to group larger areas together to try and make population equal.

1a. The framers of the Constitution were originally reluctant to include protections of civil liberties and rights in the Constitution. Do you think this would be the case if the Constitution were written today? Why or why not?

No, I do not think there would be reluctance in protecting civil liberties and rights if the Constitution was written today. Civil liberties, according to the textbook are "...civil liberties as being limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on (4.1)." Civil rights, according to the textbook are "Civil rights, on the other hand, are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made based on merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics (4.1)." When the Constitution was written 233 years ago, it was written based on current and past situations. Although there was thought given towards how it would affect future civilization, they were more concerned with the present. The Constitution provides freedom of speech, religion, and press, the right to bear arms, the right to deny unreasonable searches, the right to a jury by trial, the right to vote for women and minorities, the abolition of slavery, and many other rights which have been added since its creation. However, if the Constitution was created in today's society, fewer amendments would exist. Instead of having separate amendments for the right for African Americans to vote, women to vote, and 18-year-olds to vote, it would be one amendment. I also think the Constitution would be more detailed and specific when talking about civil liberties and civil rights. I think this because the Constitution would be based on the knowledge that we have gained over the 233 years since its creation. In today's society, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and African American rights are equally important to the rights of white males, and there would be no hesitation in including their rights in the Constitution. Civil rights, like public education, the use of public facilities, and the right to government services would not be denied to these groups of people like they were years ago. If the Constitution was written today, there would be no reluctance to protect the civil rights and liberties of minorities and other groups of people.

1b.Should all activities of the government be open to media coverage? Why or why not? In what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the government to operate without transparency?

No, not all activities of the government should be open media coverage. If the information would compromise national security, then the information should not be covered by the media. What if the information the media would release could compromise military safety or the safety of millions of Americans? It would not be smart for something like that to be open for media coverage. If a media outlet or journalist happens to come across and obtain classified material and uses it, the government can request that specific information to not be used. Although that is closing the ties between the government and the public, some things should remain secret. Government activities include defense and deals with other countries, and information like that should not be open to media coverage. Circumstances in which the government should operate without transparency would be when the government has found the location of a terrorist or criminal and they are watching him, where troops are located, and information on classified studies. The following is a simplified example take directly from 8.3 in the textbook. Geraldo Rivera was embedded with a U.S Army unit in Iraq during the second Persian Gulf War. He was there to provide live coverage of the day-to-day activities. Rivera drew a map in the sand to show where the unit was and where it was going. The military used their right to maintain secrecy over troop movements and locations. Rivera was then immediately removed from the unit and escorted from Iraq. It is detrimental to maintain the location of troops and the unit because they could be attacked by enemies which would most likely result in many deaths. In some circumstances, the government needs to operate without transparency.

1b. If a person's religious beliefs conflict with the law or lead to bias against other groups, should the government protect the exercise of those beliefs? Why or why not?

No, the government should not have to protect the right to religious beliefs if these beliefs cause conflict with the law or lead to bias against groups. "The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religious conscience and practice and the right to free expression, particularly of political and social beliefs (4.2)." I think that the government should protect the exercise of those beliefs, as long as these actions do not harm other citizens. It is cruel and goes against the first amendment to discriminate against a group or harm them because they go against what you believe in. "This development prompted a backlash among many religious conservatives, who considered homosexuality a sin and argued that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lessen the value and sanctity of heterosexual marriage (5.5)." It is not right to discriminate against someone because they go against your belief, and the government cannot and should not support that. The government can't support that because it goes against the other group's beliefs. That is why I think the government should not protect the right to a religious belief if their beliefs cause harm to other citizens.

1b. What can be done to increase voter turnout in the United States?

One thing that can be done to increase voter turnout in the United States is a mail only voting system. This would mean there are no polling locations and only mailed ballots. Oregon, Colorado, and Washington have a mail only voting system. "These states have seen a rise in turnout, with Colorado's numbers increasing from 1.8 million votes in the 2010 congressional elections to 2 million votes in the 2014 congressional elections (7.2)" Another think that could be done is to have election days on the weekends. A large majority of the population work a fulltime job and have children. The have to work, sleep, eat, and take care of their children. If polling places were open on the weekends, a time when most people don't work and have a break from their busy lives, voting turnout would increase. "Texas opened polling places on weekdays and weekends in 1988 and initially saw an increase in voting in gubernatorial and presidential elections, although the impact tapered off over time (7.2)." Votes should also be automatically registered. Participation is not mandated and maybe it should be a requirement to vote. "Sweden and Germany automatically register their voters, and 83 percent and 66 percent vote, respectively (7.2)." Finally, low voting turnout occurs because some citizens are not allowed to vote. Although this is to avoid fraud, stricter voter ID laws impact minority groups and the elderly, who do not always have ID.

1a. In what ways are political parties of the people and in what ways might they be more responsive to elites?

Political parties are for the people in a few different ways. They basically "are groups of people with similar interests who work together to create and implement policies (9.1)." Political parties can be for the people because the people make up the political party. The purpose of a political party is to gather people who have common interests and beliefs. It's purpose is to do what the majority of people want. Political parties are made of the party organization, the party in electorate, and the party in the government. Although it may not always seem like it, people play an important roll in political parties. Parties guide members of Congress in drafting legislation, they guide proposed laws through Congress and inform party members on what they should vote on, they coordinate political campaigns, and nominate candidates to run for state government. They are able to do this when elections are won by specific political parties. "Once in power, the party is then able to deliver, to its voters and elites, the policy preferences they choose by electing its partisans to the government (9.1)." Political parties could be more responsive to the elites because they feel that they have to do what the elites tell them. The elite are powerful and above the average person due to wealth, power, and privilege. Political parties are made of everyday people that are not wealthy, powerful, or privileged. They may feel that they have to do what the elite want, therefore, making them responsive to the elites. Also, political parties usually receive money from elites.

1c. In general, do parties make the business of government easier or harder to accomplish?

Political parties make the business of government harder to accomplish. This is mainly because political parties will not compromise with each other. I think this is divided government. "Divided government occurs when one or more houses of the legislature are controlled by the party in opposition to the executive (9.4)." This can pose a large threat to the government. When the divide between political parties is extreme, the government may shut down. The following is a simplified version take from the 9.4 of the textbook. A conflict between Gerald Ford and a Democrat-controlled Congress led the government to being shutdown for ten days. In the 1980s, before the problem was addressed, the legislation mandated a closure of federal government activities. Another example comes from the same section of the textbook. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the federal government shut down eight times. These shutdowns was caused by disagreements between Reagan and the Republican controlled senate. With these examples, we can see that parties make the business of government much harder. It is commonly due to conflicts and we can see this in modern day government and politics as well.

1c. How does social media affect elections and campaigns? Is this a positive trend? Why or why not?

Social media greatly affects elections and campaigns. Candidates that have a lot of money campaign the longest, gaining more coverage and voter support. It doesn't matter whether the candidate has bad attributes, they will be given the most media coverage because they have the most money. This increased the number of inexperienced candidates that ran for office. This is obviously a good thing for the candidate; however, it is not for other candidates and for voters. "The 2016 primary campaign by President Donald Trump shows that grabbing the media's attention with fiery partisan rhetoric can get a campaign started strong (7.3)." Media covers speeches and conventions during the presidential election. They make statements, facts, and opinions known to the public, relaying what they have read and heard. This makes it difficult for voters to get clear information. This is a positive trend because social media is becoming a huge part of our everyday lives. Most people base their opinions off of what they hear and read from social media. It's not a good source to gather information from when you are trying to make a decision, since media is powered by money.

1c. What are the merits and drawbacks of American federalism?

Some merits of American federalism consist of being given more independence, citizens can participate in government, there's an encouragement to engage in policy innovation, and individual freedoms and liberties are protected. "Another advantage of federalism is that because our federal system creates two levels of government with the capacity to take action, failure to attain the desired policy goal at one level can be offset by successfully securing the support of elected representatives at another level. Thus, individuals, groups, and social movements are encouraged to actively participate and help shape public policy (3.5)" Some drawbacks of American federalism are the lack of similarity between state laws and the conflict between Federal and State governments. According to the textbook, "Chief among them are economic disparities across states, race-to-the-bottom dynamics (i.e., states compete to attract business by lowering taxes and regulations), and the difficulty of taking action on issues of national importance (3.5)." The race-to-the-bottom tactic which is used to compete with other states comes with a social cost. The safety of workers and pay will suffer if workplace regulations are lifted and payroll taxes are reduced.

1c. Evaluate the Citizens United decision. Why might the Court have considered campaign contributions a form of speech? Would the Founders have agreed with this decision? Why or why not?

The court may have consider campaign contributions a form of free speech because when an individual contributes their money and time to something, they are technically displaying there beliefs and ideals. An individual also has the right to donate whatever they want and buy whatever they want whenever they want. Therefore, the court may have seen campaign contributing as a form of free speech. The court held the idea that "entities had free speech rights, much like individuals, and that free speech included campaign spending (10.5)." Honestly, I am not sure if the founders would have agreed with the decision. I am on the fence with this question. If the first amendment gives individuals the right to give money to the organization or group they support, then I think the founders would have agreed on this decision. If the first amendment does not give individuals the right to give money to the organization or group they support, then I think the founders would not have agreed on this decision. The founders support free speech and free society for every United States citizen. Therefore, I feel that the founders would have most likely supported this decision.

1c. Explain the difference between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, and explain how these two clauses work together to guarantee religious freedoms.

The establishment clause is the provision of the First amendment. It prohibits the government from endorsing a sponsored religion. "When the United States was founded, most countries around the world had an established church or religion, an officially sponsored set of religious beliefs and values. In Europe, bitter wars were fought between and within states, often because the established church of one territory was in conflict with that of another; wars and civil strife were common, particularly between states with Protestant and Catholic churches that had differing interpretations of Christianity (4.2)." A lot of people in the United States were refugees and came to the United States so they could follow their religion and practice their beliefs. Diversity prevented the United States from creating a national religion, so they created the establishment clause. The free exercise clause limits the government to control religious practices. "This portion of the First Amendment regulates not the government's promotion of religion, but rather government suppression of religious beliefs and practices. Much of the controversy surrounding the free exercise clause reflects the way laws or rules that apply to everyone might apply to people with particular religious beliefs (4.2)." These two clauses work together to protects religious liberty. The free exercise clause protects the religious beliefs, empowering individuals to practice their religion as they please. The establishment clause prevents the government from having a national religion, giving religions the ability to grow. Together, these two clauses work together to allow religious freedom no matter what you believe in.

2b. Do polls predict outcomes?

The polls predict the candidates that are the most popular and the news programs interview those candidates. This leads to the other candidates being discarded and dropping out of the campaign. So no, polls do not always predict the outcomes. Can they? Yes. Is it guaranteed? No. An example can be taken from the textbook. "Alf Landon was predicted to win 55.4 percent of the popular vote; in the end, he received only 38 percent (6.2)." Even though Alf Landon was predicted to win, he didn't. In 1948, pollsters did not poll on the day of election, leading to the reliance on old numbers. Zogby's polls did not represent the likely voters corrected. However, the above examples had many polling processes errors which lead to incorrect predication. "With any political event, whether an election, or a congressional vote, or a Supreme Court decision, you can spend time analyzing and predicting what might happen and then, after the fact, you can analyze why your prediction was correct, or way off base (00:39)." Even the video makes the point clear that even if you predict and analyze everything correctly, it doesn't mean the outcome will be the same as the polls.

1b. How does the provision for and the protection of individual rights and freedoms consume government resources of time and money? Since these are in effect the people's resources, do you think they are being well spent? Why or why not?

The provision for and the protection of individual rights and freedoms consume government time and money because rights and freedoms are controlled and given to us by the government. The government protects our rights, healthcare, police protection, education, road building and maintenance, food stamps, retirement, and many other things that consume money and time. "...you have the right to trade your knowledge, skills, and labor for money through work or the use of your property, or trade money or goods for other things of value, such as clothing, housing, education, or food (4.3)." The government must provide us with what is necessary to survive. The government must provide protection to keep people safe, health services to those who are sick, and education to those who are learning. The government also provides a lawyer when you cannot afford one. All of these rights that citizens have consume lots of money and time. I think that most of the government money is well spent. We are given free protection and education and food stamps and health care if you can't afford it. The government spends a lot of money on social security, Medicare, and national defense to keep us safe and healthy. I feel that most of the government money is well spent however, I do think that some areas of the government are over and underfunded.

3. From the 1960 U.S. Presidential Campaign Commercials: Who are the targets for Kennedy's ads and Nixon's ads? Whose ads did you find more appealing (or who would you vote for based on those ads)?

The targets for Kennedy's ads and Nixon's ads are the voting citizens. Presidential campaign commercials are usually created to sway voters into voting for one candidate. They want to reach the general population and target their competitors, saying negative things about them. I found Kennedy's ads more appealing. I think they were more appealing because one, around the 4:00 timestamp caught my attention. It was loud had had a jingle. Another one, around the 2:00 timestamp targeted families, portraying how families could be hurt if they didn't vote for Kennedy. I'm not sure who I would vote for based of on those ads. Based off of these adds, I would be swayed to vote for Kennedy. However, I do not think votes should be based off of ads.

2. From the OpenSecrets website: Research the top contributing lobbying organizations in Washington, D.C. What types of groups appear in this list, and why? What does this list tell us about interest group politics and democracy? Don't just write "Other is at the top." Who/what is in the different sectors, and how might those organizations have advantages that individuals may not?

The top contributing lobbying organizations in Washington D.C is other. However, there are another twelve top lobbying organizations. These organizations, in order from thirteen to two, are defense, transportation, agribusiness, construction, energy/natural resources, labor, lawyers and lobbyists, communications/electronics, health, misc. business, ideology/single-issue, and finance/insurance/real estate. These groups appear on the list because they are the largest sources of contributors that have given the most from a specific industry. From this list, we can tell what groups contribute the most and support politics, for example, the finance/insurance/ real estate section. It is "the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interest, and commercial banks" that supply most of the money. From this list, we can also see the individual top contributors. This tells us whether democrats, republicans, liberal groups, conservative groups, or nonpartisan supply the most money. The majority of the donators are either conservative groups or liberal groups, specifically in finance/insurance/real estate, ideology/single-issue, misc. business, health, energy/natural resources, agribusiness, and labor. We can also see that democrats and republicans fund/support defense, transportation, and lawyers, and lobbyists. This shows us what different interest groups support. Now, back to the top group, other. The top contributor in this section, as of 2019-2020 is the University of California, followed by Marcus Foundation, Quadrivium Foundation, and other foundations and Universities. The top recipients from this group are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, with Donald Trump receiving 136 million dollars and Joe Biden receiving 102 million dollars. We can see that from this that republicans are a top contributor to this category. Some organizations may have advantages compared to others because of the support they receive and the people they support. Compared to individuals, these contributors are well known and well known, gaining them more support and allowing them to become major contributors. All of the above information was taken from the Interest Group section on opensecrets.org.

1b. Discuss how the federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments.

The video states "In the federal system, the national government takes care of some things, like for example, war with other countries and delivering the mail, while the state government takes care of other things like driver's license, hunter's licenses, barber's licenses, dentist's licenses... (1:05)." Even though the federal government shapes how the nation is governed, the states do have a say in most of the laws and rules that control them. In a federal government, citizens elect representatives who make decisions. For example, citizens can vote for sheriffs, judges, state representatives, and the president. The national senate and congress are made of lawmakers who, by law, represent the will of people who live in the states. From the textbook, "..general revenue sharing programs were created that distributed funds to the state and local governments with minimal restrictions on how the money was spent (3.2)." According to the textbook, the federal government created a program that distributed funds to both state and local governments with no limits on how to spend it. This shaped the state and local governments. One other method the federal government used/uses to shape actions of state and local governments are block and categorical grants. These provide money to levels of government fund programs that were created by the federal government.

1a. What factors determine whether people turn out to vote in U.S. elections?

There are many factors that determine whether people turn out to vote in a U.S election. One of these factors is an individual's education. "Among those who have completed college, the 2012 voter turnout rate jumps to 75 percent of eligible voters, compared to about 52.6 percent for those who have completed only high school (7.2)." Education has a strong effect on students and commonly determines the voting turnout. Income, which is the money an individual receives for work, strongly effects the likelihood of voting. "Citizens earning $100,000 to $149,999 a year are very likely to vote and 76.9 percent of them do, while only 50.4 percent of those who earn $15,000 to $19,999 vote (7.2)." Another major factor is race. Whites are more likely to turn out to vote, with 63% of white citizens voting compared to 62% of African Americans, 31% Asian Americans, and 32% Hispanic citizens. However, voting turnout may increase or decrease depending on the racial representation within the state. The main factors that strongly predict that a citizen will vote are race, income, education, and social status.

1a. What are the opportunities and limitations for presidential leadership in the contemporary political system?

There are many opportunities and limitations for presidential leadership in the political system. Lets start with the opportunities. The opportunities a president depends on circumstances that are out of their control and change every year. For example, this year we were dealing with corona around the election. Other examples are did the past president die in office, did they resign, did they get assassinated? Some presidents may take office when the electorate is looking for change. It really all depends on the current circumstances. An example of when a president took opportunity of certain circumstances was Theodore Roosevelt. According to the textbook, "Theodore Roosevelt, openly bemoaned the lack of any such crisis, which Roosevelt deemed essential for him to achieve greatness as a president (12.5)." Also, residents in the U.S may want a president that is strong. A president that appears strong to the people is a president that makes use of the veto power in important situations. For example, "as in the case of Ulysses S. Grant, who was far more effective in garnering support for administration initiatives than scholars have given him credit for (12.5)." Now lets look at the limitations for presidential leadership in the political system. Presidential leadership is limited to prevent to much power. Presidents were limited in the way they were able to reach the public and convey their perspective. However, that is obviously not as big of an issue now a days, for example, social media. Messages in newspapers were not effective in drawing support, even when the president was blunt. Some undertook the nation and others promoted good relationships with press. An example taken form the textbook is "Abraham Lincoln experimented with public meetings recorded by newspaper reporters and public letters that would appear in the press, sometimes after being read at public gatherings(12.4)."Most presidents used the power of patronage and private deal making so they could achieve what they want. However, when it cam to diplomacy and war, presidents were able to exercise authority on their own. But even in those circumstances, they were limited by their independence of action.

2b. From the textbook and video (meaning I expect to see support from the book and video): What pathways to engagement do you plan to follow or find agreeable? Any pathways you think you won't pursue?

There are many pathways of engagement that you can follow. You can put a sign in your yard, wear a T-Shirt, preach what you believe on the street corner, hang a flag from your porch, and even buy a bumper sticker. Engagement is important because it allows everyday people to influence government actions. You can contact representatives and tell them what you think about a political issue by calling or sending emails. I'd rather keep my opinions to myself and just do my part by voting. My family is too political and I've seen many arguments that detour me from buying a political bumper sticker.

1a. In what ways do the media protect people from a tyrannical government?

There are many things the media does to protect people from a tyrannical government. First, it provides the general public with information. The media does this in several ways. Media outlets request information on investigations and do research on current issues, and citizens rely on that. Media outlets can request information on investigations and press conferences because of the Freedom of Information Act, also known as the FOIA. "The act requires the executive branch of the U.S. government to provide information requested by citizens and was intended to increase openness in the executive branch, which had been criticized for hiding information (8.3)." Citizens and media outlets wishing to obtain specific information can request this information. Agencies can charge fees if the documents and information requested has taken labor and time. Usually, citizens can find this information in Newspapers, on national broadcast, and local news. However, in recent years, social media has boomed and most information is gathered from social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and currently a popular platform, TikTok. Social media allows the public to not just gather information but give information and engage in discussions and report injustices. Second, the media can place pressure on the government. This protects citizens from a tyrannical government because it shows the government that citizens want to change. Recently, social media has played a big role in this. For example, the media are watchdogs of society and public officials. Commonly referred to as the fourth estate because there the firth three branches(estates) of government and the media participates as the fourth. "This role helps maintain democracy and keeps the government accountable for its actions, even if a branch of the government is reluctant to open itself to public scrutiny (8.1)."

3) Dig into the Party and Age article. The results are in the headline, but what else does the article tell us? Were there any results you found surprising, or any new info at least?

This article informs the reader that depending on age and party an American source for political news varies. We are told the CNN and Fox News are the most commonly used sources for political and election news in adults. "In all, about half (49%) of U.S. adults named one of these eight outlets as their main source for political and election news (Grieco)." These eight outlets were Fox News, CNN, NPR, NBC News, ABC News, MSNBC, CBS News, and the New York Times. The most popular, as I stated above, were CNN and Fox News. Personally, I think most of the above outlets are unreliable and biased and should not be used when retrieving information about politics. We are also told that women are more likely than men to turn to network TV outlets. "Women are much more likely than men to favor network TV, as they make up about six-in-ten or more of those who cite CBS (70%), ABC (60%) or NBC (58%) as their main source for political news (Grieco)." We are also told that the ages 18 to 29 name New York Times as their main source. There are many facts and statistics found in this article. I found it interesting and surprising that 13% of respondents declined a recognizable news outlet, left the field blank, or said they didn't have a main news source. How do you not know where you get your political/news information from?

2) From the video: What is the problem with how media is portrayed today? What is the purpose of labeling media as "false" or "lying?" What should we do as consumers of media to find the truth? Specific multiple references to the video as support are expected.

he problem with how media is portrayed is that the media does not provide the people with the situations. Instead, the media provides people with negative charges and negative outcomes from situations and issues. This makes people less interested in voting because they hear so many negative things. It makes it difficult to distinguish right from wrong. "They don't cover politics and government in the sense of issues. They're happy, occasionally, to cover horserace and scandal and personality and crime and that aspect of politics (10:47)." Instead of covering issues, the media covers unimportant thing, not the important things. According to the study, talked about around the time stamp 11:45-11:50, local news rarely talks about important issues like taxes, education, and ordinances. The media, in this case, a news channel, is portrayed as something to entertain and keep views instead of something to inform and discuss real issues at hand. The purpose of lying in the media is really to get views, reads, and clicks on their websites and news channels. Facts and the truth are not entertaining to most people. A large majority of people want drama and issues, not truths and facts. "So because it's not entertaining, because the stations think its rating poison, they don't cover it on the news (10:38)." The real information, the real news that the people should know, is not given to the public because the news does not cover it. Labeling media as false is used "to demonize anybody willing to enforce standards of accuracy (29:37)." The purpose of labeling media as false is to trick and manipulate citizens into voting for one candidate instead of the other. As consumers of media, when searching for the truth we should avoid the toxic stuff and not pay attention to it. There is so much misinformation and lies out there and it is difficult to find the truth. Instead of having the truth and facts, almost everything we know or might think of as facts are just opinions. As consumers of media, we must decide what is important to us. Do we want to be entertained or do we want to be informed? When searching for the truth, don't rely on news channels and ads. Try to find reliable news channels and websites. Don't go to your local news channel or GMA and don't rely on the word of your friends.