Political Science 1 Final Exam Section 3: Essay
Why is the Electoral College controversial? In three paragraphs, explain why advocates of a National Popular Vote object to the Electoral College (paragraph 1), why defenders of the Electoral College support its continued use (paragraph 2), and what you personally believe and why (paragraph 3).
Paragraph 1: Critics of the Electoral College argue that it has several shortcomings. They argue first that the Electoral College can produce undemocratic outcomes. For example, it is possible for a candidate for president to win the majority of votes nation-wide but still lose the election by losing the Electoral College. In addition, critics argue that the Electoral College has the effect of causing presidential candidates to ignore most of the country when campaigning. Because most states are either majority Democrat or majority Republican states, the Electoral College forces presidential candidates to spend all of their time and money in the few "battleground" or "swing" states which have a roughly even number of registered Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these few "swing" states tend to be majority white and have no major cities. As a result, the platforms of presidential candidates tend to ignore minority issues like civil rights, immigration reform, and racial discrimination, and tend to ignore as well the problems of major cities, such as urban poverty and the lack of affordable housing (rent is too damn high!). Critics of the Electoral College argue that because of these shortcomings, the Electoral College should be reformed to allow for a National Popular Vote. They argue that a NPV would be both more democratic and would also force presidential candidates to pay attention to the entire country. Paragraph 2: Defenders of the Electoral College respond to its critics by attacking the idea of a National Popular Vote and by defending the federalism of the Electoral College. They argue first that a National Popular Vote would be unconstitutional because its implementation would circumvent the Constitutional amendment process because their plan does not abolish the Electoral College but rather asks states to simply allocate all of their Electoral College delegates to the winner of the nation-wide vote rather than the winner of the state's vote. Defenders argue that this would go against the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. In addition, defenders of the Electoral College argue that a NPV would harm the country's federalism (its division of government power between the states and the federal government). They argue that the Electoral College currently preserves state power by guaranteeing that each state gets two Electoral College delegates regardless of the state's population and also by focusing media and political attention on the states rather than on the country as a whole. A NPV would undermine this guarantee of federalism because all that would matter would be the winner of the nation-wide vote, and not the decisions of the populations of each of the individual states. Defenders of the Electoral College claim that federalism is vital to the preservation of our political liberties. Moreover, defenders of the Electoral College argue that a NPV would not have the effect of causing candidates to pay attention to the entire country, as critics of the Electoral College claim, but would rather in fact cause candidates to instead start paying most of their attention to states with the greatest populations. Paragraph 3: Students must state their opinion and at least two reasons. I agree with the view that My perspective is based on the following two reasons. First, Second,
Why are voter ID laws controversial? In three paragraphs, explain why some believe that voter ID laws are necessary (paragraph 1), why others believe such laws are merely political and discriminatory (paragraph 2), and what you personally believe and why (paragraph 3).
Paragraph 1: Defenders of voter ID laws argue that such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. They identify four types of voter fraud which they claim will be prevented by such laws: (1) impersonation fraud at the polls; (2) voting under fake voter registrations; (3) double voting by individuals registered in multiple districts; and (4) voting by unauthorized immigrants and/or immigrants who have not yet naturalized. Defenders of voter ID laws stress that there are many types of voter fraud because critics of voter ID laws often argue that voter fraud is rare and therefore that such laws are unnecessary. Defenders admit that impersonation fraud is rare, but claim that the other types of voter fraud - voting under fictitious registrations, double voting, and voting by unauthorized immigrants - have the "potential" to become more common. Finally, defenders of voter ID laws claim that there is no evidence that voter ID laws decrease turnout. They claim that the "overwhelming majority" of citizens have a photo ID or can "easily obtain one". Also they argue that in some states with voter ID laws, turnout among the poor and minorities has even increased, "perhaps" because they now believe voting is more secure. Paragraph 2: Critics of such laws argue that voter ID laws are unnecessary because voter fraud is extremely rare. In addition, they claim that voter ID laws are like poll taxes (which existed during the Jim Crow Era in the South and which were intended to prevent African-Americans from voting) and that such laws are therefore racist and intended to suppress Democratic voters. First, critics claim that requiring an ID to vote is like a poll tax because many states charge a fee to obtain state-issued photo IDs. In addition, to get an ID, individuals must show documentation, such as birth certificates or social security cards, which also cost money to obtain. Also, many individuals would have to travel great distances to get such IDs, again at their own personal cost and during working-hours. Moreover, critics argue that voter ID laws are unduly discriminatory against low-income voters, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, disabled voters, and college students because these groups are the least likely to have state-issued photo IDs and also the groups least able to afford to get such IDs. They claim that such laws are politically motivated because these groups are also more likely to vote for the Democratic Party and voter ID laws have been proposed almost exclusively by Republican lawmakers and have only passed in states controlled by Republican majorities. Paragraph 3: Students must state their opinion and at least two reasons. I agree with the view that My perspective is based on the following two reasons. First, Second,
Why is the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act controversial? In three paragraphs, explain why Republicans object to the individual mandate (paragraph 1), why the Obama Administration believes the individual mandate is justified and legal (paragraph 2), and what you personally believe and why (paragraph 3).
Paragraph 1: The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as "Obamacare," requires that individuals purchase healthcare insurance or face a penalty ($95 in 2014; $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016). Republicans object to the individual mandate because they reject the claim that government has the power to require individuals to buy insurance, arguing that not buying insurance is an inactivity, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the power to regulate only: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) instrumentalities (persons and things) involved in interstate commerce; (3) and activities (but not inactivities) that affect interstate commerce. In addition, Republicans object to the idea of government provided healthcare in general, arguing that government-run healthcare will make people dependent on government. They also argue that the financial assistance that ACA requires that government must provide to individuals who cannot afford to buy insurance will increase government spending, adding to the federal debt. Paragraph 2: In contrast, the Obama Administration believes that the individual mandate is justified and that the country badly needs healthcare reform. The Administration notes that in 2008, 43.8 million Americans had no healthcare insurance either because they could not afford to buy insurance or because they were denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. For example, thousands of residents in Los Angeles alone go to free clinics every year set up by organizations founded to help countries much, much poorer than the US! In addition, 62% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. The Administration argues that the Affordable Care Act will help fix these problems because it makes it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions or to charge women more for insurance than men. In addition, the law sets up healthcare marketplaces to help individuals find insurance and provides financial aid to individuals who cannot afford to pay for insurance. The Administration notes that for the ACA to work, individuals must be required to buy insurance or they would only sign up for insurance when they got sick and this would bankrupt the insurance companies and so the law would not work. It argues that the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce (Commerce Clause) and the power to pass laws that are necessary for effective regulation (Necessary and Proper Clause). Because the healthcare companies are nation-wide and operate between states, government has the power to regulate them. Because not requiring that individuals buy insurance would bankrupt the insurance companies (because the law prevents the companies from denying sick people coverage), the individual mandate is necessary for the effective implementation and regulation of the law. Paragraph 3: Students must state their opinion and at least two reasons. I agree with the view that My perspective is based on the following two reasons. First, Second,