US POLITICS ESSAY PLANS

Evaluate the view that the US Constitution no longer lives up to its principles

P1 = checks and balances

effective checks and balances remain and have prevented abuse of power

VS

weakened, eroded, ineffective, branches can exceed powers and get around them

P2 = bipartisanship

evident in times of crisis, still examples today

VS

very rare, increasing partisanship and ideological gap between parties today, (even within parties), constitution requires strong bipartisanship so difficult to past key amendments

P3 = federalism

enshrined in constitution and evident today in state laws, amendment process etc.

VS

expanded role and involvement of federal govt and importance of increasingly nationalist policies

Evaluate the view that the US Constitution is effective at limiting government

P1 = checks and balances effectively checks and limits government, preventing tyranny and dominance of one branch. FF gave congress significant power to heavily restrain president

VS

they have eroded and no longer effectively limit government in the way the founding fathers intended. president can exceed powers with executive orders and also use power of veto etc.

P2 = bipartisanship in constitution ensures policy based on compromise of different interest and that one party cannot dominate the political agenda

VS

consistent gridlock in congress leads to ineffective government. if party has control in presidency and both chambers, could become undemocratic as legislation is passed easily without having to compromise (e.g. Bush 2002)

P3 = power of supreme court ensures high level of protection of civil rights. Power of judicial review keeps check on government actions under constitiution

VS

power means government may be prevented from carrying out policy = limited government and claims of limited democracy.

Evaluate the view that the USA remains federal today.

P1 = states clearly hold power, protected under 10th amendment and have independence - differences in state law

VS

increasingly nationalist policies and federal mandates the states most comply to, federal government arguably has power

P2 = supreme court has upheld state rights under the constitution and protected them from expansion of federal government (USA v. Lopez 1995; Shelby County v. Holder 2013)

VS

increased submissions to supreme court shows decentralised court system established to protect federalism no longer fit for purpose. lots of debate around balance between state and federal government and conflict to regain state power (Roe v. Wade 1975)

P3 = significant role in amendment process (3/4), blocking amendments they ideologically oppose to protect their own political influence

VS

increased centralisation in washington, creation of cabinet posts and departments, increased reliance for funding on government

Evaluate the extent to which the procedure for amending the US Constitution is no longer fit for purpose

P1 = difficult to remove outdated aspects and incorporate new ideas. US society constantly evolving and not supported by rigidity and inflexibility of constitution

VS

protection of key amendments and principles of the political process that protects fundamental rights and prevents ill-thought out amendments that are short-lived waves of popular sentiment whilst allowing change with broad bipartisan support to ensure ideology cannot change constitution

P2 = arguably against majoratarian democracy and allows potentially key amendments to be dropped at the expense of a few states which can be over represented (smallest could block amendments potentially) - supermajority rule

VS

protection of federalism and the states (10th amdt) equal representation and lack of discrimination for smaller states. has upheld rights due to entrenched nature and can keep up with times (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

P3 = gives supreme court excessive power to unelected and arguably biased judges final say on key issues of institutional power and human rights

VS

prevention of abuse of power, stopping 1 individual from changing for own personal benefit and creates need for broad based consensus

Evaluate the view to which the US Constitution is democratic.

P1 = free, fair and frequent elections. separation of powers and federalism allows citizens to vote more frequently than any other country. 2 year terms for representatives allows constituent's voices to be heard + 6 years for senate allows them to carefully put in place longterm legislation and be known representatives for constituents

VS

electoral college = undemocratic, can be elected on less than 50% of vote and over represents the states. FPTP system = 'winner takes all' and removes representation of losing parties

P2 = separation of powers & checks and balances serve interests of democracy but equally checking the distribution of power, maximising power of people

VS

can damage democracy - president not always able to carry out public promises because of checks blocking actions. branches can exceed powers in pursuit of personal interests

P3 = strong and powerful rights protection through entrenched, codified nature with legal protection to citizens. PG's allowance provides scrutiny from outsider stance

VS

overriding of individual rights due to increasing concerns over national security, laws can be created undermining opportunities for some voters

Evaluate the view that the constitutional powers of congress are currently being fulfilled.

P1 = power to legislate arguably highly effective as constitution requires strong bipartisanship, keeping checks on presidents' role with power of veto and power to override presidential veto again

VS

elastic/ 'necessary and proper' clause has given authority to pass laws with loose constitutional confirmation and outskirt enumerated constitutional powers

P2 = keeping check on other branches - impeachment, refusing presidential appointments, ratifying treaties etc & refuse judicial appointments, proposal of constitutional amendments and impeachment of judges

VS

checks are majority rarely used, impeachment has never lead to removal and other branches can get around these checks

P3 = amendment process has allowed for development of constitution in line with democracy and society. requires bipartisanship and prevents abuse of power/ ideologies creating binding amendments

VS

increasing ideological marginalisation and polarisation makes it difficult to amend and gain cross-party support to pass key amendments

Evaluate the view that the Senate is more powerful than the house

P1 = senate

arguably holds more significant powers than congress - power to try impeachment case, ratify treaties, confirm executive appointments

VS

6 year terms mean constituents may not have as much trust within Senators as they can abandon promises made to constituents for own/ party interest

P2 = house

all impeachment proceedings must start in house,

power to raise revenue through taxes, power to initiate money bills (power of the purse)

chooses president if deadlock reached in EC

theoretically more representative and therefore more legitimate in the eyes of the people because of frequency of election and number of reps

VS

frequent elections = constant battle in order to stay in power

power of choosing president hasn't been used since 1800 and 1824

P3 =

more committees and sub-committees means senators likely to be on one and therefore impact legislation.

Presidential hopefuls more likely to be senators than house reps

VS

both houses have equal legislative power and legislation must be passed in both for a bill to come into motion

both equal in amendment process

house of representatives has clear speaker third in line to presidency

Evaluate the extent to which parties are the most significant influence on voting in Congress.

P1 = pressure to vote with party line, increasing sense of voting to provide ideological alliance and hurt opposition with partisanship increasingly important

VS

weak whip and patronage so cannot be forced to vote on party lines as such. Divides within parties are present and congressional caucuses can cause conflict on voting with party line

P2 = folks at home/ public opinion more important, frequency of HoR elections means they must consistently meet requests of constituents or risk losing power. arguably more important than party lines and is seen more frequently in favour of public than party

VS

hard to satisfy all constituents, especially in larger states with a range of views and difficulty in reaching out to all areas of constituency. not as important to senators as elections are every 6 years so not held to account as far

P3 = interest groups and lobbyists have dominating and influential role. regular, expensive elections = representatives especially susceptible to influence for financial donations. wealthy PG's pay lobbyists to congress congressmen and pursue political agenda. ratings can be influential on voting behaviour and significant to public

VS

rankings can seem insignificant and ultimately, voters voices are more important.

Evaluate the view that the legislative process is more effectively influenced by pressure groups than political parties.

P1 = pressure groups actively pursue ways to influence legislation through lobbying politicians, litigation and even electioneering to support politicians that might push through their agenda

VS

can be limited when one party controls presidency, house and senate as any pressure group that opposes their ideology/ agenda has limited chance at influencing. many may perceive them as undemocratic as they have no elected agenda and yet can influence legislation

P2 = parties have some leverage in whip and patronage system, increasing polarisation and partisanship has lead to party line voting at an all time high, despite contrasts within factions and congressional caucuses

VS

nature of congress and whip system means politicians aren't bound to vote with party and can vote in own/constituents' interests

P3 =pressure groups have an undeniably increasing influence over policy and their size, power, use of resources and links can often successfully lead to change in legislation and key policies that represent the members of the group etc

VS ultimately, pressure groups are increasingly becoming more influential but still don't dominate over things that oppose party line's (generally). popularity of president largely dominates today. Pressure group success often comes from targeting access points in which the party would agree, successes of radical ideas outside party policy/ ideology are rare - house unity

Evaluate the view that campaign finance is the most significant factor determining the outcome of congressional elections.

P1 = advantage of wealth can outrun other candidates, regardless of who may be better/experienced/beneficial. used to fund advertising. increase in average spending on senate and house elections + influence of PACS using undisclosed donors to sponsor and fund candidates

pressure groups can sponsor candidates and help fund campaign too

VS

increasing examples of candidates winning on lesser funds/spending, demonstrates winning people can be more impactful in reality

P2 = incumbency advantage and more experience can lead to more voter trust and comfort. used to boost campaign by appealing to voters' needs + knowing voters on more personal level can make it hard for serious competition

VS

lack of incumbency can be used to boost campaign by appearing as an outsider/underdog and relating more to disillusioned voters who feel outside of the political system

P3 = personality and use of 'grass-roots' campaigning strategies can unseat incumbents and appeal to voters in a personal way. frequent contact with voters in person and with online presence can gather more popularity and recognition. personalities may appeal to voters and increase likeability

VS

grassroots campaigning may only reach a small amount of people and personalities can deter voters. Voters arguably can place experience and knowledge above personality

Examine the extent to which Congress fulfils its representative function

P1 = frequent elections to house leads to a highly representative chamber that is obliged to represent views and needs of constituents or risk losing power. quick to respond to public opinion and act on current issues, whilst senate can use long terms between elections to consider longer term effects of legislation and vote with rationality rather than consistently trying to please constantly evolving opinions of voters. strong accountability and high sensibility to public opinion

VS

FPTP and gerrymandering can undermine and heavily distort public opinion. not necessarily reflective of society under voting system and gerrymandering techniques and all representation lost for losing parties, even if seats are marginally lost

P2 = 2 chambers allows for complementary representation and alternatives - 2 representatives rather than one (both chambers) e.g. when passing legislation

VS

arguably unrepresentative of US society in gender, age, sexuality and ethnicity. over representation of white, straight, older males can distort congressional decisions and legislation, cannot understand or represent voices of minorities or other people

P3 = separation of powers provides greater representation than other modern parliamentary systems. lack of executive influence over legislature ensures greater accountability and independence, so no individual can dominate another branch in self interest. greater voter choice regardless of party

VS

pressure groups can distort wishes of public as politicians may respond to them due to size/money. elite theory suggests that significant money can overrepresent and dominate the interests of interest groups over the general public's desires

Evaluate the view to which the strength of the Congressional legislative process outweighs the weaknesses.

P1 = quality policy from detailed scrutiny and consideration + a filter of undesirable legislation with no bipartisan support. limits danger of poorly thought out bills

VS

increasing partisanship has lessened willingness of parties to compromise which the constitution requires, making bipartisan legislation difficult to pass

P2 = check and balances within process prevent tyranny by creating pluralist democracy with shared powers. checks on branches means legislation is protected in many ways

VS

inefficiency/ low output of results due to excessive need to compromise. congress cannot act quickly on urgent issues and often fail to respond to legislation on key issues

P3 = individual states' rights well protected within process. senators can suggest amendments and filibuster on basis of equal state power and interests of those they represent

VS

poor quality legislation can emerge from too much compromise. increasing polarisation between parties means lack of coherence due to many amendments/conflicting interests. effectiveness of bills then disputed as congress split along party lines + pork barrel spending an example of irrational decisions that are financially wasteful

Evaluate the extent to which major party conventions have a meaningful role in the presidential selection process.

P1 = selects presidential and vice candidates, marking start of election campaign and end of primary season, meaningful event with opportunity to launch platform

VS

role has changed with creation of national primaries in 1968. winners are already known so convention becomes merely a formality

P2 = reunion of party creating image of cohesiveness and party unity - only time of meeting as a whole with 50 state parties coming together, key after divisive party process, losing candidates often give speeches endorsing winner. Creates positive publicity and helps endorse winner

VS

arguably more divisive than unifying, underlying tensions can be present and split parties further - lack of officials being present + protests to them in public

P3 = publicity for candidate and opportunity to rally party activists. opportunity for winner to transmit message nationally and attack opposition. celebrity endorsements. allows party members to get behind candidate and believe in them

VS

decrease in public attention with TV's no longer airing full convention. public have declared them unimportant in majorly influencing their vote

Evaluate the extent to which public participation in the presidential nomination process advances democracy.

P1 = invisible primaries require strong public support to be considered. contestants establish themselves and gain loyalty from voters + publicity by popularity

VS

'money' primaries - influence of money may outrun potentially more beneficial candidates solely due to finances and cause drop outs because of lack of funding

P2 = primaries and caucuses a form of direct democracy. open primaries in states very democratic + caucuses are live and open debates and representations. prevention of parties dominating political process of choosing + increasing participation in recent years

VS

greater deliberation and effort in voting can deter voters and attract crowd unrepresentative of US society. low overall turnout, especially with incumbent president and his own party

P3 = greater voter choice by social characteristic, increased diversity and opportunity to be represented by minorities

VS

media can largely influence public perception by over/under-representing candidates and focusing on most telegenic candidates rather than most beneficial/experienced

Evaluate the extent to which presidential primaries are important.

P1 = increased participation opportunities and voter choice- open primaries very democratic + increasing diversity by social characteristic in recent years

VS

can cause voter fatigue and attract voters unrepresentative of US society. rules for different states = sense of randomness and inequality within process

P2 = increases electability and produces proven and determined candidates. tests ability to overcome deficiencies and personal issues + raise funds. more transparent than corrupt 'washing machine' Washington politics and allows outsiders a chance

VS

long and expensive process dominated by media. iowa and new hampshire advantage throughout history whilst later states influenced by these votes and are not truly representative of real voter choice with disenfranchised voters

P3 = allows key policies to be debated and range of ideological views shown that can educate voters. successful policies of unsuccessful candidates can be adopted by winners to represent people who supported them and benefit campaigns

VS

can divide parties internally with fierce sense of competition, negative campaigning even within parties

Evaluate the extent to which the electoral college is no longer fit for purpose.

P1 = undemocratic is candidates can win on less than 50% of the vote. 'winner takes all' system = complete loss of representation for losing parties, even when marginally lost

VS

produces clear winner with greater legitimacy and therefore makes governing more effective. 1 candidate typically receives absolute/definitive overall majority, excluding minority parties with extreme ideologies (2 party system maintained)

P2 = over-representation of small states as they can be defining if results are close.

VS

protection of states because of fixed value and population based distribution, protecting low turnout seats

P3 = maintains federal system of government and representation, abolishment would = taking from heart of federal system enshrined in constitution. carefully balanced power between national and state governments

VS

swing states receive greater focus (candidates may offer greater political benefits to these) and are over-represented, safe states ignored. many extremely marginal seats in 2016 - undemocratic as disproportionate influence for these states. can depress voter turnout rates giving elected government less legitimacy

Evaluate the view to which the Republican party are now more divided than the Democrats.

P1 = social policy has caused great divide within party. moderate vs social conservatives both strong influences within party and often clash on viewpoints, creating rivalry and tension

whilst democrats largely united on social policy with majority advocating stronger rights for racial minorities, women and the LGBT community

VS

strong sense of party line voting in recent times that have brought Republicans together over social issues, with only few voting against

P2 = economic policy - fiscal conservatives distanced from rest of party with more liberal views over economy - laissez faire. rising influence within freedom caucus who have opposed party lines for not going far enough. have pushed with a 'no compromise' attitude on legislation, causing gridlock and conflict. have suggested regulations to Trump etc. and have replaced Tea Party as main right wing faction of party

Democrats largely united in supporting increased federal minimum wages and greater governmental intervention in national economy to provide for social justice rather than serving interest of wealthiest in society

VS

Republicans united in favouring tax cuts on wealthier groups + view of governmental intervention being minimal, allowing for greater personal freedom

Moderate democrats more willing to compromise on tac cuts and contrast views of some liberal/ conservative democrats on economic policy, who are unwilling to budge or compromise