Political Science Answer Note #8

Question 1 Which of the following offices or agencies are part of the Executive Office of the President? Correct Answer(s) Drag appropriate answer(s) here Office of Management and Budget Press Space to open Federal Bureau of Investigation Press Space to open National Security Council Press Space to open Department of the Treasury Press Space to open Incorrect Answer(s) Drag appropriate answer(s) here Answer The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is a collection of agencies and offices that support the President in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. These offices work closely with the President and play a crucial role in shaping and implementing policies and initiatives. The correct answer is: Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council, and Department of the Treasury. Question 2 Considering the data from various research papers, the Electoral College's flaws in violating political equality, favoring certain citizens based on their state of residence [2], and its complexity leading to potential malfunctions and misrepresentation of public wishes [3], suggest that abolishing it would be a step towards a more democratic system. The Electoral College's tendency to elect the candidate who did not win the popular vote [5] and the higher winning chances for the stronger candidate under this system [4] further highlight its shortcomings. While arguments for its preservation include balancing state interests and preventing uneducated voting [1], these concerns are deemed outdated in the modern political landscape. Therefore, amending or replacing the Electoral College with a system that ensures direct representation of the people's will would be more in line with democratic principles and political equality. Answer The Electoral College has been a longstanding institution in the United States' presidential election system, but it has faced criticisms for its flaws and potential impact on democratic principles. As stated in the question, research has shown that the Electoral College violates political equality by giving certain citizens more voting power based on their state of residence [2]. This is due to the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, where a candidate can win the presidency with a minority of the popular vote. This not only undermines the principle of "one person, one vote," but also goes against the idea of equal representation for all citizens. Furthermore, the complexity of the Electoral College system can lead to potential malfunctions and misrepresentation of public wishes [3]. This has been seen in the past with "faithless electors," who do not vote according to the popular vote in their state. This can result in a candidate winning the presidency even if they did not receive the most votes from the people. Additionally, the Electoral College's tendency to elect the candidate who did not win the popular vote [5] goes against the principle of majority rule, and the fact that the stronger candidate has a higher chance of winning under this system [4] highlights its inherent flaws and undemocratic nature. While arguments in favor of preserving the Electoral College include balancing state interests and preventing uneducated voting [1], these concerns are outdated in the modern political landscape. With advancements in technology and access to information, the idea that some voters are more informed than others is no longer valid. Furthermore, the argument for balancing state interests goes against the principle of equal representation, as it gives more weight to certain states over others. To address these issues and promote a more democratic electoral process, the Electoral College should be amended or replaced with a system that ensures direct representation of the people's will. This could include a national popular vote, where the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the presidency, or a ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to rank their preferred candidates. These alternatives would better align with democratic principles and promote political equality. In conclusion, the research and data from various political science sources suggest that abolishing the Electoral College would be a positive step towards a more democratic system. Its flaws in violating political equality, potential for malfunction and misrepresentation of public wishes, and tendency to elect the candidate who did not win the popular vote, highlight the need for change. Preserving the Electoral College based on outdated concerns is not in line with democratic principles. Therefore, it is necessary to amend or replace the Electoral College with a system that ensures direct representation of the people's will. Question 3 There are numerous discussions involving the Electoral College. There are some people that want to abolish the electoral college while others want to keep it. What do you think? Keep the electoral college or abolish it? Explain the reasons for your choice. Answer The debate over the Electoral College has been ongoing for many years, with both sides presenting valid arguments. However, after researching and analyzing various political science sources, I believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. In this answer, I will explain the reasons behind my choice and support it with evidence from academic sources. One of the main arguments for keeping the Electoral College is that it ensures equal representation of smaller states. This argument is based on the fact that each state is allocated a number of electors based on their population, which prevents larger states from dominating the election process. However, this argument fails to consider the disproportionate power that smaller states hold in the Electoral College. For example, in the 2016 election, Wyoming, the least populous state, had one electoral vote for every 187,923 people, while California, the most populous state, had one electoral vote for every 711,378 people. This means that the votes of citizens in less populous states are given more weight than those in more populous states, thereby undervaluing the principle of "one person, one vote." Moreover, the Electoral College can lead to a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 elections. This undermines the democratic principle of majority rule and can cause frustration and disillusionment among voters. This phenomenon also disregards the will of the majority of the American people, as evidenced by the fact that in five presidential elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016), the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the presidency. Furthermore, the Electoral College creates a winner-takes-all system in most states, which means that the candidate who wins the majority of the votes in a state receives all of that state's electoral votes. This diminishes the importance of individual votes, as a candidate can win a state by a slim margin and still receive all of the state's electoral votes. This system also discourages voter turnout, as citizens in "safe" states may feel that their vote does not matter in determining the outcome of the election. In conclusion, the above reasons are a few examples of why the Electoral College should be abolished. It undermines the principle of "one person, one vote" and can lead to discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral vote. For a truly democratic election process, the popular vote should be the deciding factor, and the candidate with the majority of the votes should win the presidency. Question 4 Political scientists disagree on the exact causes of low representation of women in Congress. Why do you think there are so few women in Congress in comparison to men? How likely is it that these patterns of representation will dramatically change over your lifetime? Answer The low representation of women in Congress is a complex issue that has been a topic of debate among political scientists for decades. While there is no single answer to this question, there are several factors that have been identified as contributing to this phenomenon. One possible reason for the low representation of women in Congress is the historical and ongoing systemic biases within the political system. According to a study by the Center for American Women and Politics, women are less likely to be recruited, nominated, and funded for political office than men. This is partly due to the traditional gender role expectations that place women in the domestic sphere rather than in the public and political sphere. Additionally, the existing political structures and networks are often dominated by men, making it difficult for women to break into these spaces and establish themselves as viable candidates. Another potential explanation is the impact of campaign financing on women's representation in Congress. Election campaigns are expensive, and women often face more difficulty in raising funds than men do. This is because women, on average, have less financial resources and access to donors compared to men. As a result, women may be less competitive in elections and therefore, less likely to secure seats in Congress. Moreover, there is also evidence that shows the prevalence of gender stereotypes and biases in electoral attitudes. Research has found that women's leadership is often perceived negatively and is associated with traits that are deemed incompatible with leadership such as empathy and nurturing qualities. These stereotypes can hinder women's chances of being elected to Congress as voters may have lower expectations of female candidates' competence and effectiveness. As for the likelihood of these patterns of representation changing significantly in the near future, it is challenging to accurately predict. However, there has been a slow but steady increase in the number of women in Congress over the past few decades. For instance, in the 116th Congress, women hold nearly a quarter of all congressional seats, which is the highest in the history of the United States. This shows that progress is being made, but it is still insufficient considering that women make up more than 50% of the population. In conclusion, the low representation of women in Congress is a complex issue that cannot be attributed to a single cause. It is a result of historical, cultural, and systemic barriers that limit women's political participation and representation. While there have been efforts to address this issue, it is difficult to determine the likelihood of significant change in the near future. However, continued efforts to promote gender equality and increase women's political representation can lead to progress in this area. Question 5 Write down two reasons to why a state that favors unity would oppose or support the Articles of Confederation Answer The question of whether a state that favors unity would support or oppose the Articles of Confederation is a complex one, as the very purpose of the Articles was to promote unity among the newly independent states. However, it is important to consider the reasons why such a state might have either supported or opposed the Articles at the time they were written. In this answer, I will outline two key reasons why a state that valued unity might have either supported or opposed the Articles of Confederation. One reason why a state that favors unity would support the Articles of Confederation is the fact that it provided a framework for all the states to work together as a unified entity. The Articles established a central government, the Congress of the Confederation, which had the power to declare war, make treaties, and manage foreign affairs. This allowed the states to act as a united front against external threats and avoid conflicts among themselves. Additionally, the Articles encouraged interstate cooperation and commerce, as it gave Congress the power to regulate trade among the states. This was especially beneficial for smaller states, which might have struggled to compete with larger states if left to their own devices. On the other hand, a state that favors unity might have opposed the Articles of Confederation due to its lack of a strong central government. One of the main criticisms of the Articles was that it did not give enough power to the central government, leaving important decisions up to the individual states. This posed a threat to the unity and stability of the nation, as it could lead to conflicting laws and decisions between states. This was especially concerning for states that were deemed to be weaker or less influential, as they might feel their interests would not be adequately represented by a weak central government. As historian Gordon S. Wood notes in his book "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787", this was one of the key reasons why states such as Virginia, which were more powerful and influential, were more likely to support the Articles, whereas states like Pennsylvania, which were smaller and less powerful, were more likely to oppose them (Wood, 1969). In conclusion, the question of whether a state that favors unity would support or oppose the Articles of Confederation is a complex one, as there were valid arguments on both sides. While on the one hand, the Articles provided a framework for unity and cooperation among the states, on the other hand, its weak central government raised concerns about the stability and effectiveness of the nation. Ultimately, it was these conflicting views that eventually led to the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, which sought to strike a balance between state and national power.