<p>Hello!</p>
<p>I was wondering if anyone here is or has taken Poli Sci 1 with Van Houweling before. I ask because I am totally stuck with how to start this essay we have to write. What is he looking for us to include in our essay? Any place to help me start off would be great. Thanks!</p>
<p>is this the Huey long one? :)</p>
<p>Haha, fortunately it is not. </p>
<p>This one is about the President vs. Congress. Does Congress do a better job of representing the voters than the President does because Congress is subject to a higher frequency of elections and do not have term limits? </p>
<p>I do not even know if I agree or disagree with this question. I can kind of see either side…</p>
<p>you help me with my evolution paper and i’ll help you with yours</p>
<p>Hmm, our paper was slightly different. I think mine was talking about senate vs House. However, the format is the same.</p>
<ol>
<li>choose a side</li>
<li>talk about why <opposite of=“” what=“” you=“” chose=“”> is good</opposite></li>
<li>talk about why <same> is better</same></li>
<li>talk about why <opposite> sucks</opposite></li>
<li>conclude that <same> is the right choice</same></li>
</ol>
<p>Of course congress represents the voters better, not only for those reasons you listed but also because Congress consists of people representing smaller groupings of Americans (such as a state congressional leader representing the will of those in a state) and as a result more people of different backgrounds are being represented. When you have more leaders splitting up larger populations than more people can actually be represented since it is easier for their voices to be heard. Also, Congressional leaders are voted on by a direct vote, so the exact majority of their region voted them in, representing those people more adequately. The president is not only trying to be the leader of a whole nation, but he/she is elected through an electoral college meaning that not everyone’s vote counts to the same extent as those in Congress. Make sense? I could go into more detail if you need…or private message me if you need help!</p>
<p>Congress represents smaller groups and special interests more. They represent a geographic area while the president is more representative of national issue and thus actual voter issues. </p>
<p>Electoral college is a poor reason to discount the president as there are only 2-3 instances in history the electoral college did not reflect the popular vote. Similarly, gerrymandering districts can been seen to have the same effect for congressional candidates.</p>
<p>A good paper should display arguments for both sides. Having arguments for one side isn’t enough to get an A in college…</p>
<p>I agree that both sides should be addressed however the OP should choose a side that they mostly want to argue with and then before the conclusion they should go into a paragraph or two (well depending on the length of the paper) explaining the main points of the other side. Of course, unless the teacher specifically said to argue both points equally…</p>
<p>Also, I agree that congress represents smaller groups and sometimes special interests, however since they are elected through direct vote and since individual congressmen represent the attitudes of their smaller regional areas and can bring focus to those local issues that a president can’t, then the people of that area are much better represented through their congressmen. Also, since congressmen are directly elected they are more motivated to follow the will of the people of their region in how they vote since they have to rely on every single vote in order to keep their job (which comes into question more often then the president due to shorter term limits). The president has to worry about re-election as well but they generally only care about those on their party lines and those that are moderates, they only represent one party and rarely reach out the the entire spectrum of voters. Besides, just by the way congressmen are elected compared to the president shows that they are more represented. However in regards to your historical argument, I understand that history has displayed our electoral college to be somewhat functional, however that is only because we are lucky enough to not have had an overly corrupt government and/or government officials in the electoral college thus far. We have generally been lucky enough to have electors that have voted on the side of their voters, however their is no law that requires them to do so. So even though we have, luckily, mostly elected a president reflective of the popular vote, as stated before: there is not law that requires electors to vote in the direction of the majority, therefore it is less representative in regards to the process. Also, if each individual vote doesn’t count towards electing your official then its not a representative election in my opinion. Also, congress represents multiple different groupings of people across all party lines while the presidents is only from one party and thus only represents that one party at the time he/she is in office. You can’t tell me that a republican president while in office represents all Americans? Or vice versa with a democrat? If so their wouldn’t have been a campaign or an election! </p>
<p>Good luck on your paper! ( :</p>
<p>I’m in this same class and my GSI mentioned our perceiving Congress as a whole as opposed to individual members of Congress. Would the point on its representation of smaller groups and special interests be irrelevent?</p>
<p>He’s looking for how beer milkshakes made Doc’s world.</p>
<p>Betsypi-- I don’t think so…since the whole is made up of the individual Congressmen, its still a whole representing multiple smaller groupings. You don’t have to put a lot of focus on that, but I think it is still important to mention. I would focus more on the fact the congress represents different parties and holds more frequent elections that are direct elections. This is just my opinion of course, do whatever makes you comfortable! I’d say write your first draft with everything you can think of and then go back and edit, if the “individual congressmen” argument is irrelevant to the rest of your paper then cut it! ( :</p>
<p>My GSI said “Representatives can be delegates or trustees - these are the two main STYLES of representation - and it is clear that the prompt’s statement argues by assuming only one of the two.” so do i just write about just delegates or trustees or both? im so confused. because then my GSI said " You can use the delegate-trustee dichotomy to structure your essay. If we assume representation by delegation is better, we will get one set of answers, but if we assume trusteeship then we get a different set of answers." SOMEONE HELP</p>
<p>well just break it down. Trustee’s vote according to their beliefs, and delegates vote according to who they represent. So if that is the case, I would say that delegates are more representative of the people since they vote according to the majority opinion of those they represent. Also if this is still in regards to the OP’s essay questions then that would still make it clear the Congress is more representative than the president since it is made up of people that are delegates, while the president doesn’t really vote he just veto’s, influences, and signs bills…he doesn’t really represent the people, he represents his party and generally in more of a “trustee” and “votes” according to his beliefs. Get it?</p>
<p>There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. Faithless electors are not a practical problem, and most states have complete authority to remedy any problem there could be, by means of state law.</p>
<p>If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state’s dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party’s dedicated activists.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).</p>
<p>The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. </p>
<p>Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. </p>
<p>Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. </p>
<p>Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.</p>
<p>Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.</p>
<p>Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).</p>
<p>Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.</p>
<p>The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes – enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). An election would never be thrown into the House.</p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.</p>
<p>The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium, and large states. It has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -”28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.</p>
<p>NationalPo*<em>pularVote</em>.*com</p>