FRQ Prompt 6

There are many indicators that can point towards a citizen that is likely to vote. Some of these factors are education level, marital status, union membership, minority status, age, etc. The highest and most commonly used indicators are education level and age. As a voter gets older, his or her political stance becomes more definite and they become more likely to vote. Such individuals have seen the benefits of policies and want to continue to receive assistance from them which makes the elderly more inclined to vote. Education level is also a strong indicator of likelihood to vote. As a person becomes more educated, they generally become more aware of current events and politics. While the motivation as to why might be unclear, it could be out of civic duty or to further beneficial policies, such awareness prompts those with high a education level to vote.

Voter registration is a major obstacle that decreases voter turnout. Most states require a voter to be registered well before election day. This hurdle can prove to be annoying, time consuming, and inconvenient to many and greatly reduces the actual number of eligible voters. The Moter Voter Act adopted by certain states tried to remedy this issue, however, it is largely ineffective as many permit eligible young adults are not 17 years of age and therefore cannot register.

Political parties are a major linkage institution in United States politics. The party national convention presents the party platform that influences ideological voters. This allows citizens to see the difference between parties and make decisions based on whose policies align most closely with their own and vote accordingly for beneficial policies. They play a part in the political socialization of voters as well. Also, many states require a person to be registered in a political party to vote in a primary. By belonging to a party, an individual has the ability to vote and support policies and candidates that they believe will help them.

FRQ Prompt 5

A) When it comes to politics, interest groups always play a part. There are many ways that such groups can participate and influence the government to support policies that favor them. Litigation is one such method. Litigation is the process of taking legal action. This method can be efficient and effective at most levels, especially the Supreme Court, to overturn laws or gain support against legislation and effect future laws and legislation. The Supreme Court is the only branch of the government that can deem laws unconstitutional and overturn them, making litigation appealing to certain groups. It is also a good for a group that does not have the numbers because it does not require mass support. Unfortunately, such a course of action can be costly and  is limited to groups who have a large pool of resources.
Contributing to a campaign is also a method that groups use to achieve their goals. Again, this does require a good amount of resources and money so it is not practical for smaller organizations. This does help with influencing the policy makers. Since the campaigns support individuals who could influence policies and the policy agenda, it is a very common way for groups to gain influence throughout candidate support.
Another technique that interest groups use is mass mobilization. This is usually used by a group who wants to overthrow the incumbent and is an effective way to spread a message, increase awareness, and forward reform or change. This does not necessarily require large amounts of money as do the other methods and can be used by groups without financial means but popular support.

B) The National Rifle Association uses campaign contributions as their main method of achieving goals. They are a large organization with a large pool of resources that has the ability to take such monetary steps. Contributions is their method of choice because the issue of guns is a volatile one, especially recently, and litigation would bring unwanted media attention of both the positive and negative nature. As for mass mobilization, the NRA has many members but they need people in office to block legislation to tighten gun controls. Since money plays such a large role in campaigns and the NRA has the means, it is logically the best course of action.

Philippines

Post-natural disaster, health, nutrition, water, and shelter are big worries for a nation such as the Philippines after Super Typhoon Haiyman. Charities are a good way of helping the relief effort because they are well organized and generally large or international. They are able to operate much more quickly and effectively than smaller grassroots organizations. UNICEF United States Fund is an example of such highly effective charities. Based on the amount of money that brings in, over 90% goes directly the programs or services it delivers. A mere 2% goes to administrative fees. It is also has a high level of transparency of its policies, board members, and programs. The Red Cross, another large scale charity, is not nearly as efficient. While it does put a large amount to programs and small to administration, the Red Cross primary expenses and revenue has been decreasing.


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has many areas of interest, one of which is water, sanitation, and hygiene. Once the Philippines is back on its feet, it will most likely be forgotten, or at least leave the foreground of the public's attention. This is a critical time for the future of the country. One of the BMG Foundation's projects is clean, water less, hygienic toilets. Several working prototypes have been made and been successful. The use of such innovations would allow for water to be used for other purposes and improve hygiene in the long term. It is not just the immediate future that needs attention in areas of natural disaster, it is the long term as well.

Senator Ron Wyden

Background

Senator Ron Wyden, although not a native Oregonian, has served our state since 1986. Born in Wichita, Kansas, Wyden moved to Paolo Alto, California in his youth and grew up there. He was a talented basketball player and attended the University of California: Santa Barbara on a scholarship, although he later transferred to Stanford where he completed his Bachelor of Arts in 1971. Wyden's graduate studies brought him to Oregon where he earned his Juris Doctorate at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Despite being a Democrat, Wyden is committed to bi-partisanship. He was first elected in 1980 to the U.S. House of Representatives when he upset incumbent Bob Duncan in the Democratic primary, then soundly defeated Republican opposition Darrell Conger. After serving in the House for 15 years, Wyden looked to expand his political experience by becoming a senator. That year, Senator Bob Packwood vacated his seat and a special election was held to fill it. Wyden ran and narrowly defeated his qualified opponent Gordon Smith. After completing the partial term, he was elected for a full term in 1998 and has held his seat ever since. Wyden has expressed his disapproval of excessive military force as demonstrated by his repeated votes against when the issue has come up in the Senate. Other subjects he has strong opinions about include open government, health care, civil liberties, and more.

Committees

Committee on the Budget

Committee on Finance

Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight

Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness (Chairman)

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Chairman)

As Chairman, Senator Wyden is an ex-officio member on all subcommittees.

Select Committee on Intelligence

Special Committee on Aging

Joint Committee On Taxation

Issues

Health Care is an issue that Wyden has been vocal and engaged in for years, especially lately with it's growing prominence and place on Obama's agenda. He was a sponsor of the Healthy Americans Act in 2009. The act would have created a national health care system on a competitive private market platform. He has supported increased funding for Medicaid in the past and has pushed for lower prescription drug prices as well. Wyden endorsed the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act. He was considered a possibility by many nomination for the position of Secretary of Health and Human services. Despite the fact that he did not receive the position, he still remains a prominent figure in the arena of health care reform.

Widen has also been a figure in civil liberties. He is pro-choice, maintaining support from organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. He also endorses same sex marriage, demonstrated by his votes against DOMA and the Federal Marriage Act and his vote for the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act. Wyden is also a supporter of gun control and has voted in favor of increased background checks and to renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Questions
On gun control, where is the line between protecting civil rights and protecting the greater population from the 
dangers if putting guns in these hands of the few that pose a treat to society?
Why do you believe that health care should be expanded and reformed? How is the new online system of Obamacare operating under recent criticism?
Do you believe in government transparency to the point of full disclosure or merely having access to the information for those who want to know?

Howard Hunt

The Watergate was an infamous event that shocked our nation and shook the people's faith in their leaders. The cover-up is much more famous than the actual bugging of the Democratic headquarters. Nixon hid behind his loyal politicians and revered station to avoid most of the blame for a long while. Even when condemning evidence in the form of secret recordings of the president surfaced, Nixon tried to save his own skin by ordering the Attorney General to fire the Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. This resulted in the resignation of the Attorney General and his deputy and Cox was eventually firing by the Solicitor General, dubbed the "Saturday Night Massacre." By the time the tapes were released to the public, the president's reputation was ruined and he resigned rather than face the music.

The name at the forefront of this scandal is and will always be President Nixon, but he was not the sole person responsible for Watergate. One of the other integral people involved in the scandal was Howard Hunt. If Nixon was the brain who ordered the coverup, Hunt was the mouth that actually gave the commands. He was born as Everett Howard Hunt in Hamburg, New York. Hunt enjoyed a successful professional career after graduating from Brown University. Initially, his occupations ranged from screenwriter to Life magazine correspondent. A master with words, he also received the Guggenheim Fellowship and worked on a documentary for TIME. As a former member of the Naval Reserves and the Army Air Force as well, Hunt was not unfamiliar to serving his country. He eventually became a CIA operative and remained there until 1970.

Post CIA, Hunt worked for a public relations firm in Washington D.C. Hunt was known as a "plumber" who cleaned up leaks, one of which was the the Pentagon Papers incident. His involvement in the Watergate scandal was also extensive. In 1971, he and Gordon Liddy collaborated to dig up dirt on President Nixon's Democratic opposition in the upcoming election. He organized the five-man break in into the Democratic Party Headquarters. Hunt's involvement was quickly discovered when his phone number was found in some of the burglars possession. E. Howard Hunt pleaded guilty in 1973 and was sentenced to 35 years in prison for conspiracy, burglary and eavesdropping. This sentence was eventually reduced to 2.5-8 years, of which he served over 32 months and was fined $10,000. After being paroled in 1977, Hunt continued writing and eventually died on January 23, 2007 in Miami, Florida.




http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/6c.html
http://www.biography.com/people/e-howard-hunt-262375
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/howardhunt.html

New American Center

When reading the results of this survey, I felt very skeptical. Not that I don't find it possible that the majority of Americans could reside in the center when it comes to the political spectrum, I just find the survey slightly suspicious. While all of the data seems completely legitimate, we have no idea where these conclusions came from in relation to the data. We don't know what the conductors of the study consider "liberal" or "conservative." To the best of our knowledge, they could have considered only very radical opinions not moderate.I also found some of the visual representations ambiguous and not easy to interpret. All in all, I do not like this representation of the data from the NBC survey.

FRQ Practice 2

When the framers of the constitution wrote the document, they purposely created a federal system, meaning a tiered government with local, state, and national levels of government. Although, theoretically, each operate in their own separate sphere, most of the time the levels of government operate on a "cooperative federal" level. The national government does have a moderate amount of power over state governments with categorical grants and federal mandates. Through these two systems, the national government can attach figurative strings to federal money that the states use. If the states do not adhere or meet certain standards, money can be withheld. On the flip side, states have power due to block grants and the Tenth Amendment. Block grants are basically handed out to all states with very general uses attached to them. This allows the states to put the money where it is needed most, as long as it vaguely relates to the grant specifications. The Tenth Amendment says that the state government are granted all powers not directly delegated to the national government or strictly prohibited of the states. This gives the states a significant amount of power because much can be open to interpretation.

FRQ Practice 2

When James Madison framed the Constitution he had many ideas for how should operate and who should run it. He could never have imagined how the United States, and the world for that matter progressed in the following 200 years. Despite his lack of precognition, Madison did account for change by integrating the ability to change the Constitution and its meaning to better suit the times.

Passing Amendments is the formal way to change the Constitution. Throughout our history, we have done so numerous times, and as a whole, the amendments have made the United States more democratic. There are two "phases" to amending the Constitution, proposing the amendment and passing the amendment. It can be proposed by 2/3 of the House of Representatives or 2/3 of state national conventions. From there, it can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or 3/4 of special state conventions.

While there is a formal process, changes to the Constitution, much of the change has been informal. For example, the Senate and electoral college was originally set up to take the election of the president out of the voters' direct control. Now, most Senators vote with what the will of the majority in their state. Also, the two party system was never created under the Constitution. Even from the early days, it was evident that there was a divide, at the time it was between the Federalists and anti-federalists. In modern day, the equivalent is Democrats and Republicans. The two party system has transformed politics in the United States and, as a result, the meaning of the Constitution.

Looking at American history, it is evident that the informal process of change has been used much more frequently than the formal one. This is due to the fact that the formal process was set up to be slow. Out of fear of mob rule, the framers purposefully set up a system that would encourage change, but only if it was slow. For the formal process, there are many steps to follow and people to appease and compromises to be made. It makes sure that every view is taken into account and the policy best reflects  the ideals of the Constitution and the will of the people, consequently, it is a slow process.

Free Response Practice

2.) Primary elections and the expansion of suffrage are both 20th Century developments that democratized American politics. Primary elections helped the voting populace control the presidential nominations. Prior to primaries, caucuses were held where political leaders controlled the nominations but post-caucus era, the voters chose nominees. The expansion of suffrage also aided the democratization of American politics by increasing participation of the entire population. Prior to the women's suffrage movement in the early 1900's and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, a select population actually voted, hardly representative of Americans as a whole.

There are many types of political participation other than voting, such as supporting a candidate and civil disobedience. When a person supports a candidate, they can encourage and convince others to vote for a particular candidate which increases voting. Civil disobedience is another form of participation made famous by names such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. Civil disobedience often draws a lot of media attention, and unlike protest (another form of participation) is typically nonviolent.

Free Response Practice

1.) The Legislative Branch, specifically the House of Representatives, is the most closely linked to the people. The nature of the House is direct representation. This being the case, people directly elect, and therefore have a direct influence on, representatives. The process of direct election allows voters to select representatives that reflect their ideals and policy they support.

The United States Constitution restricts majority rule with the Judicial Branch and the Senate in Congress. The Judicial Branch is free of the direct influence of the people. The Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life by the president and are not obligated to cave to will of the majority. The role of the judges is to uphold the constitution and since they do not have to worry about re-election, they are unburdened by responsibility or losing their position due to voter displeasure, the will of the majority is not priority. The Senate, similarly, is out of the majority's hands. Selected by state legislatures, the voters do not have a say in the population that controls the electoral college. These two institutions restrict the majority rule and ensure that there is no mob tyranny.

Ideology and Politics

Ideology has minimal impact on political ideology. The majority of the American population does not have enough political knowledge to form educated opinions about politics and make decisions based on ideology. In reality, many of the people who identify with ideology are politicians, and even then they tend to stick to party lines so their opinion is lost in the majority or looming election. While a small portion participate based on ideology, most are classified as "group benefits," "nature of the times," or "no issue content." This means people vote in terms of groups they like or dislike, whether the times seem good or bad (productivity), or because of routine or personality of candidates, respectively. As a general rule, people are conservative in ideology but liberal in practice. There are many institutions that we generally accept and want to keep but are very liberal.

Political Knowledge By Age

           In AP Government, we all asked five people five questions to test their political knowledge. The data was sorted by age group and this is the percentage of correct answers by age.

Enter Stage Right

Hello to the few people that will read this blog, my name is Emma Paulson. I am a senior (YES!!! >_<) this year and am looking forward to an excellent school year. This summer I went to Seattle, got a job, and had fun with friends, you know, typical teenage summer activities. Thanks all, much love.