A CHatGPT-Produced and CED-Aligned APGov Review

45 min readFeb 7, 2023

For Topics 5.1–5.13

With the help of CHatGP, I created this “Topic 5.1–5.13 Review” in less than two hours. If I can do it, so can the kids. Guessing some even have already. Mindboggling!

Even more mindboggling — ask CHatGPT to pair down by at least 50% various sections of this long read and ask CHatGPT to take what it has produced and explain it in much simpler terms.

Topic 5.1: Voting Rights and Models of Voting Behavior

Legal protections found in federal legislation and the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments relate to the expansion of opportunities for political participation.

How Can Americans participate politically?
There are many ways for Americans to participate politically. Here are five of the most common ways:

Voting: One of the most fundamental ways to participate in the political process is to cast a ballot in elections.
Volunteering: People can volunteer their time and resources to support political campaigns and causes they believe in.
Joining a political party: Americans can join a political party and become active in local, state, or national party activities.
Writing to elected officials: Writing letters, emails, or making phone calls to elected officials is an effective way to express opinions on issues and to advocate for changes in government policies.
Participating in public demonstrations and protests: Americans have the right to peacefully assemble and voice their opinions through public demonstrations and protests. This is an important way to make political views heard, to bring attention to important issues, and to influence decision-makers.

Opportunities for political participation have expanded as a result of the passage of what amendments?
Opportunities for political participation have expanded as a result of the passage of the following five amendments.

The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, gives African American men the right to vote by prohibiting the federal and state governments from denying the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, established the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote, instead of being appointed by state legislatures.
The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, extends voting rights to women by prohibiting the federal and state governments from denying the right to vote based on gender.
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibited poll taxes, which were fees charged to voters as a condition of casting a ballot and were often used to suppress the African American vote.
The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years old. It was passed in response to the Vietnam War, as many young people were fighting in the war but couldn’t vote for the politicians who were making decisions about it. The amendment states that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

Examples of political models explaining voting behavior include:
— Rational choice — Voting based on what is perceived to be in the citizen’s individual interest
— Retrospective voting — Voting to decide whether the party or candidate in power should be reelected based on the recent past
— Prospective voting — Voting based on predictions of how a party or candidate will perform in the future
— Party-line voting — Supporting a party by voting for candidates from one political party for all public offices at the same level of government

What’s the most common type of voting in America?
The most common type of voting among American citizens is party-line voting. This means that voters support a particular political party by consistently voting for candidates from that party across all levels of government. Party-line voting is prevalent in the U.S. as many voters have strong political affiliations and are more likely to vote for candidates from their preferred party, even if they disagree with specific positions or policies.

Topic 5.2: Voter Turnout

Structural barriers, political efficacy, and demographics can predict differences in voter turnout in the U.S., and the following can influence voter turnout among democracies worldwide:
— National versus state-controlled elections
— Voter registration laws and procedures
— Voting incentives or penalties or fines
— Election type (midterm or presidential)

What is meant by the term “voter turnout “ (in American Congressional and Presidential elections)?
Voter turnout refers to the percentage of eligible voters who participate in an election. In American congressional and presidential elections, voter turnout is calculated as the number of people who cast a vote divided by the total number of eligible voters. A high voter turnout indicates a high level of citizen engagement and interest in the election, while a low voter turnout suggests a lack of interest or difficulty in participating in the election process. Voter turnout can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as the competitiveness of the election, the perceived importance of the issues at stake, and the accessibility of the voting process. The goal of many election administrators is to maximize voter turnout in order to ensure that the election reflects the will of the maximum number of eligible citizens.

How can structural barriers predict differences in voter turnout in the U.S.?
Structural barriers to voting, such as strict voter ID laws, limited early voting options, and reduced polling locations, can predict differences in voter turnout because they create obstacles that make it harder for certain populations, such as minorities and low-income individuals, to participate in elections. These populations are often more likely to face difficulties obtaining required identification, taking time off work to vote, or traveling long distances to reach a polling place. As a result, they may be less likely to vote and have lower voter turnout compared to other populations that face fewer barriers. This can lead to disparities in political representation and influence, as the voices and interests of certain groups may not be adequately reflected in election outcomes.

How can political efficacy predict differences in voter turnout in the U.S.?
Political efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their own ability to influence political outcomes through their actions, such as voting. Political efficacy is a key predictor of voter turnout because individuals who feel that their vote will make a difference are more likely to participate in elections. In contrast, individuals who do not feel politically efficacious, such as those who believe that their vote will not impact the outcome, are less likely to vote. This can lead to disparities in voter turnout between different groups, such as those who feel that the political system is responsive to their needs and those who feel that their voice is not heard. Additionally, factors such as political engagement, knowledge about the

How can demographics predict differences in voter turnout in the U.S.?
Demographic factors, such as age, race, income, education, and geography, can predict differences in voter turnout in the U.S.

Age: Older individuals are generally more likely to vote than younger individuals.
Race: Certain racial and ethnic minority groups have historically lower voter turnout rates compared to white individuals.
Income: Individuals with higher income levels tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower income levels.
Education: Individuals with higher levels of education tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower levels of education.
Geography: Voter turnout rates can vary depending on the region of the country, with some areas having higher voter turnout compared to others.

It is important to note that these demographic factors do not determine an individual’s likelihood to vote, but they can provide general patterns and tendencies in voter turnout. Other factors, such as political efficacy and accessibility of the voting process, can also influence voter turnout, and should be taken into consideration when studying differences in voter turnout.

What are some good examples of voter incentives?
Voter incentives are designed to encourage individuals to participate in elections by offering them a reward for doing so. Some good examples of voter incentives include:

Same-Day Registration: Allowing eligible citizens to register and vote on the same day can increase voter turnout.
Early Voting: Allowing citizens to vote before election day can increase accessibility and convenience, leading to higher voter turnout.
Vote-by-Mail: Providing citizens with the option to vote by mail can increase convenience and reduce barriers to voting, leading to higher voter turnout.
Prize Drawings: Conducting prize drawings or lotteries for individuals who vote can provide a tangible reward for participating in the election.
Voter Education Campaigns: Providing voters with accurate and easily accessible information about the election process and candidates can increase political efficacy and encourage higher voter turnout.
Community Outreach Programs: Encouraging community organizations and leaders to engage with citizens and educate them about the importance of voting can increase political efficacy and lead to higher voter turnout.
Volunteer Opportunities: Providing citizens with opportunities to volunteer for campaigns or participate in civic events can increase political engagement and lead to higher voter turnout.

It is important to note that the effectiveness of these voter incentives can vary depending on the population and the context of the election, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

What’s the difference between a midterm election and a presidential election?
A midterm election is a regular election that occurs in the middle of a president’s four-year term. Midterm elections in the United States occur every two years, and they typically include elections for all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and a third of the seats in the U.S. Senate. In addition, many state and local offices are also up for election during midterms.

A presidential election, on the other hand, takes place every four years and is an election in which the citizens of the United States vote for the President of the United States. The President is elected to a four-year term and is eligible to run for re-election once. In a presidential election, voters also elect the Vice President and determine the composition of the Electoral College, which is responsible for officially electing the President.

The main difference between the two types of elections is the offices that are up for election and the impact that the election outcomes have on the balance of power in government. Midterm elections have the potential to change the political landscape by affecting the balance of power in Congress, while presidential elections have a much broader impact as they determine the leadership of the country for the next four years.

Demographic characteristics and political efficacy or engagement are used to predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote.

How can demographic characteristics predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote?
Demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, education, and geography, can predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote in elections. These characteristics are often used to study voting behavior because they are relatively easy to measure and can provide insight into patterns in voting behavior. However, it is important to note that these demographic factors do not determine an individual’s likelihood to vote, but they can provide general tendencies.

Age: Older individuals are generally more likely to vote than younger individuals.
Race: Certain racial and ethnic minority groups have historically lower voter turnout rates compared to white individuals.
Income: Individuals with higher income levels tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower income levels.
Education: Individuals with higher levels of education tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower levels of education.
Geography: Voter turnout rates can vary depending on the region of the country, with some areas having higher voter turnout compared to others.

It is also important to consider that other factors, such as political efficacy, accessibility of the voting process, and the competitiveness of the election, can also play a role in determining an individual’s likelihood to vote. A comprehensive understanding of voting behavior requires considering both demographic factors and a range of other individual-level and contextual factors.

How can political efficacy predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote?
Demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, education, and geography, can predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote in elections. These characteristics are often used to study voting behavior because they are relatively easy to measure and can provide insight into patterns in voting behavior. However, it is important to note that these demographic factors do not determine an individual’s likelihood to vote, but they can provide general tendencies.

Age: Older individuals are generally more likely to vote than younger individuals.
Race: Certain racial and ethnic minority groups have historically lower voter turnout rates compared to white individuals.
Income: Individuals with higher income levels tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower income levels.
Education: Individuals with higher levels of education tend to have higher voter turnout rates compared to those with lower levels of education.
Geography: Voter turnout rates can vary depending on the region of the country, with some areas having higher voter turnout compared to others.

How can engagement predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote?
Political engagement refers to the degree to which individuals are involved in political activities and have a strong connection to the political process. Political engagement can predict the likelihood of whether an individual will vote in elections, as individuals who are more engaged are more likely to see voting as a crucial and effective way to participate in the political process.

Some ways in which political engagement can predict the likelihood of an individual voting include:

Political Interest: Individuals who have a strong interest in politics and follow political news and events are more likely to vote in elections.
Political Participation: Individuals who are actively involved in political activities, such as attending rallies, volunteering for campaigns, or joining political organizations, are more likely to vote.
Political Discussions: Individuals who regularly engage in political discussions with friends, family, or colleagues are more likely to vote, as these discussions can increase their understanding of political issues and the election process.
Social Connections: Individuals who have close connections to people who are politically active and engaged are more likely to vote, as these connections can provide encouragement and support for political participation.

Overall, political engagement can be a strong predictor of an individual’s likelihood to vote, as individuals who are more engaged in the political process are more likely to see voting as an important way to participate and have an impact.

What’s more likely to determine if a person will vote? Demographic characteristics or political efficacy?
Demographic characteristics such as age, race, and education level can be associated with voting behavior, but political efficacy, which is an individual’s belief in their ability to participate in the political process, has a greater influence on their likelihood to vote.

Political efficacy has been shown to be a strong predictor of political participation, including voting.

Factors influencing voter choice include:
Party identification and ideological orientation
Candidate characteristics
Contemporary political issues
Religious beliefs or affiliation, gender, race and ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics

What’s the difference between party identification and ideological orientation?
Party identification and ideological orientation are two related but distinct concepts in political science that refer to an individual’s political preferences and beliefs.

Party identification refers to an individual’s loyalty or attachment to a political party, such as the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Party identification can influence an individual’s political behavior, including their voting behavior and support for candidates and policies associated with their preferred party.

Ideological orientation, on the other hand, refers to an individual’s political beliefs and values, such as their views on government, the economy, and social issues. Ideological orientation can influence an individual’s views on specific policies and candidates, and can be a strong predictor of voting behavior. Ideological orientation can also intersect with party identification, as individuals may align with a political party that shares their ideology.

In summary, party identification and ideological orientation both play a role in shaping an individual’s political preferences and behavior, but they refer to different aspects of an individual’s political identity. Party identification refers to loyalty to a political party, while ideological orientation refers to an individual’s political beliefs and values.

Topic 5.3: Political Parties

Linkage institutions are channels that allow individuals to communicate their preferences to policy-makers:
— Parties
— Interest groups
— Elections
— Media

What are Linkage Institutions?
A linkage institution is a mechanism that connects citizens and the policy makers.

Political Parties: Political parties are considered a linkage institution because they provide a way for citizens to participate in the political process by aligning with a particular political ideology and supporting candidates who reflect their views. Through the election process, parties allow citizens to indirectly influence government policies.
Interest groups: Interest groups are considered a linkage institution because they provide a way for citizens with shared interests to advocate for their concerns and influence government policies. By organizing and mobilizing citizens around specific issues, interest groups can put pressure on elected officials and affect decision making.
Elections: Elections are considered a linkage institution because they provide a direct mechanism for citizens to participate in the political process and select representatives who will make decisions on their behalf. Through the election process, citizens can hold elected officials accountable and change the composition of government if they feel that their needs are not being met.
Media: The media is considered a linkage institution because it serves as a source of information for citizens, allowing them to make informed decisions about political matters. The media can also shape public opinion and provide a platform for discussion and debate on important issues.

How do political parties differ from interest groups?
Political parties and interest groups differ in the following ways

Purpose: Political parties are focused on winning elections and gaining political power, while interest groups are focused on promoting specific policy issues or interests.
Membership: Political parties typically have a broader membership base, including voters who align with the party’s ideology, while interest groups tend to have a more narrow focus and a smaller membership base of individuals who are directly impacted by the specific issue the group is focused on.
Structure: Political parties are often structured as hierarchical organizations with formal leadership positions and a clear decision-making process, while interest groups may have a more decentralized structure and rely on advocacy and lobbying efforts.
Tactics: Political parties primarily use elections and the legislative process to achieve their goals, while interest groups may also use advocacy, lobbying, litigation, and grassroots mobilization to influence government policy.

Overall, political parties and interest groups have different goals and operate in different ways, but both play important roles in the democratic process by giving citizens a voice in government and influencing policy decisions.

The functions and impact of political parties on the electorate and government are represented by:
— Mobilization and education of voters
— Party platforms
— Candidate recruitment
— Campaign management, including fundraising and strategy
— The committee and party leadership systems in legislatures

What’s a political party platform?
A political party platform is a set of beliefs, principles, and policies that a political party stands for and seeks to implement if elected to office. It serves as a guide for the party’s candidates and officials, and outlines the party’s positions on various issues such as economic policy, social issues, national security, and foreign affairs. The platform is meant to provide voters with a clear understanding of what the party represents, and helps to differentiate the party from its political rivals.

What does it mean for a political party to mobilize the voters?
For a political party to mobilize voters means to inspire and activate its supporters to participate in the electoral process. This typically involves encouraging people to register to vote, to educate themselves on the issues, and to turn out on Election Day. Political parties may use a variety of tactics to mobilize voters, including door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, social media outreach, advertising, and rallies. The goal is to increase voter turnout among the party’s core supporters and to encourage others to vote for the party’s candidates. The success of a political party in mobilizing voters can have a significant impact on election outcomes.

What is the “electorate?
Electorate refers to the body of citizens eligible to vote in an election. It can also refer to a specific group of voters in a geographical area, such as a state or district, who are eligible to vote for a particular office.

What is an “elector?”
An elector is a person who has the right and responsibility to cast a vote in an election. In the United States, the term is most commonly used to refer to a member of the Electoral College, the group of people who officially elect the President of the United States every four years. In the Electoral College system, each state is allocated a certain number of electors based on its representation in Congress, and citizens of each state vote for president in the general election. The candidate who receives the majority of the votes in a state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who receives an absolute majority of the Electoral College votes.

Topic 5.4: How and Why Political Parties Change and Adapt?

Parties have adapted to candidate-centered campaigns, and their role in nominating candidates has been weakened.
Parties modify their policies and messaging to appeal to various demographic coalitions
The structure of parties has been influenced by
— Critical elections and regional realignments
— Campaign finance law
— Changes in communication and data management technology
— Parties use communication technology and voter data management to disseminate, control, and clarify political messages and enhance outreach and mobilization efforts.

How does a candidate-centered election differ from a party-centered election?
Candidate-centered campaigns and party-centered campaigns refer to two different approaches to political campaigns.

Candidate-centered campaign: A candidate-centered campaign focuses on the individual running for office and their personal attributes, background, and platform. The campaign seeks to build support for the candidate and highlight their qualifications, experience, and positions on key issues. The emphasis is on the candidate as the primary driver of the campaign and the party affiliation may play a secondary role.
Party-centered campaign: A party-center campaign, on the other hand, emphasizes the political party and its ideology, platform, and history. The campaign seeks to build support for the party and its values, rather than just the individual candidate. In this type of campaign, the party affiliation of the candidate is emphasized and the candidate may play a secondary role.

Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages. Candidate-centered campaigns can help distinguish the candidate from their competitors, allowing them to reach a wider audience and appeal to a diverse range of voters. On the other hand, party-center campaigns can help build a strong party brand and unify voters behind a common set of values and principles. The choice between a candidate-center campaign and a party-center campaign can depend on a variety of factors, such as the political landscape, the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, and the overall strategy of the campaign.

What is a critical election?
A critical election is a term used to describe a significant turning point in the political landscape of a country. This type of election typically marks a shift in the dominant political ideology, party alignment, or the direction of public policy. Critical elections can also signal a change in the balance of power between different political factions or the emergence of new political movements.

Critical elections can have long-lasting impacts on the political system and the public policy agenda. For example, a critical election may result in the adoption of new policies, the realignment of political parties, or the formation of new political coalitions. These changes can shape the political landscape for many years to come and have far-reaching implications for the future of the country.

Some examples of critical elections in the United States include the presidential election of 1800, which marked the first peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, and the presidential election of 1932, which marked the beginning of the New Deal era and a shift towards a more active role for government in American society.

What is regional realignment?
Regional realignment in politics refers to a change in the political preferences or affiliations of voters in a particular region or geographical area. It often refers to a shift in the support base of political parties, resulting in changes to the balance of power within the region. Regional realignment can be caused by a variety of factors, including demographic changes, economic conditions, political scandals, and changes to the national political landscape. These shifts can have significant implications for the outcome of elections and the future of political parties in a region

Briefly describe modern-day campaign finance law?
Modern-day campaign finance law in America seeks to regulate the collection and use of money in political campaigns, with the goal of ensuring transparency and limiting the influence of wealthy donors in the electoral process. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws at the federal level.

In the United States, individuals and political action committees (PACs) are limited in the amount of money they can contribute directly to political campaigns, with individual contributions capped at $2,800 per election and PACs limited to $5,000 per election. There are also restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent on independent expenditures, such as advertisements supporting or opposing a candidate.

In addition, campaign finance law requires the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. Political candidates and committees must regularly report their contributions and expenditures to the FEC, which makes this information publicly available. This helps to ensure transparency and accountability in the political process.

Despite these regulations, the role of money in American politics remains a contentious issue, and the law has faced numerous legal challenges over the years. The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens united v. FEC, for example, allowed for the unlimited spending of corporations and unions on independent political expenditures. Critics argue that this has further tilted the playing field in favor of wealthy donors and special interests.

Overall, modern-day campaign finance law in America aims to strike a balance between allowing citizens to participate in the political process and limiting the undue influence of money in politics.

In far simpler terms:
Modern-day campaign finance laws in America regulate money in political campaigns to promote transparency and limit wealthy donor influence. The Federal Election Commission enforces these laws. Individuals and PACs have contribution limits ($2,800/election and $5,000/election). Independent expenditure limits also exist. Candidates and committees must disclose contributions and expenditures to the FEC for public viewing. Despite regulations, money in politics remains contentious and has faced legal challenges, like the Citizens united v. FEC ruling allowing unlimited corporate/union spending. The goal is to balance citizen political participation and limit money’s undue influence.

How has communication and data management technology impacted political parties in America?
In recent decades, communication and data management technology has had a profound impact on political parties in America. Some of the major changes include:

Increased use of digital communication: Political parties have embraced digital communication channels such as social media, email, and text messaging to reach voters and mobilize supporters. This has allowed for more targeted and personalized communication with voters, as well as increased engagement with younger generations who are more likely to consume news and information online.
Big data and voter targeting: Political parties have been using data analytics to identify and target specific voter groups based on demographic information, voting history, and other factors. This allows for more efficient and effective use of resources, and has changed the way campaigns engage with voters.
Virtual fundraising and donation management: Online fundraising and donation platforms have made it easier for political parties to collect and manage contributions from supporters. This has increased the efficiency of fundraising efforts and has allowed parties to reach a wider audience.
Use of predictive analytics: Political parties have been using predictive analytics to model and forecast voting behavior, inform campaign strategies, and allocate resources more effectively. This technology has also been used to analyze large amounts of voting data to identify trends and patterns that can inform campaign strategies.

Overall, these technological advancements have changed the way political parties communicate and engage with voters, and have had a significant impact on the way political campaigns are run. The use of technology in politics is likely to continue to evolve, and will likely play an even more important role in future elections.

Topic 5.5: Third-Party Politics

In comparison to proportional systems, winner-take-all voting districts serve as a structural barrier to third-party and independent candidate success.

How does the winner-take-all system differ from the proportional system?
The winner-take-all system and the proportional system are two different approaches to election outcomes.

Winner-take-all system: The winner-take-all system, also known as the “first-past-the-post” system, is a system in which the candidate with the most votes in a given election wins the election. In this system, the winner is typically the only candidate who represents the district or jurisdiction in question, even if they received only a small fraction of the total vote. The winner-take-all system is used in many American elections, including presidential elections and elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Proportional system: The proportional system, on the other hand, allocates seats in a legislative body based on the proportion of votes received by each political party. In this system, each political party is awarded a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive. The proportional system is used in many countries, including many European countries, to ensure that political representation is more closely aligned with the popular vote.

Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. The winner-take-all system is simple and easy to understand, but it can result in a large number of “wasted” votes for losing candidates. The proportional system can result in a more accurate representation of the popular vote, but it can also lead to the creation of smaller, less stable political parties. The choice between the winner-take-all system and the proportional system depends on a variety of factors, including the political landscape, the cultural and historical context, and the preferences of the citizens.

How does the winner-take-all system serve as a structural barrier to third-party and independent candidate success?
The winner-take-all voting districts, also known as the “first-past-the-post” system, serve as a structural barrier to third-party candidates because they result in a two-party dominated political landscape. In a winner-take-all system, the candidate with the most votes in a given district wins, and the other votes are effectively discarded. This often leads to a situation where voters who support third-party candidates feel like their vote is wasted, as the candidate they support is unlikely to win.

As a result, many voters who would otherwise support third-party candidates choose instead to vote for one of the two major parties in order to avoid “wasting” their vote. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction and win elections, as they struggle to overcome the perception that their vote is not worth casting. The winner-take-all system creates a self-perpetuating cycle that reinforces the dominance of the two major parties and makes it difficult for third-party candidates to gain a foothold.

What are some of the more famous “third parties” in American history?

George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968: Wallace, the governor of Alabama, ran for president on a segregationist platform and won five states in the Deep South, earning 13.5% of the popular vote.
Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912: Roosevelt, a former Republican president, ran for a third term as the candidate of the Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party, and won 27.4% of the popular vote.
The Populist Party, also known as the People’s Party, was a third-party political movement that emerged in the late 19th century in response to the economic hardship faced by farmers and working-class Americans. The Populists sought to address these issues through reforms such as the direct election of senators, the regulation of monopolies, and the establishment of a graduated income tax. The Populist Party had its greatest electoral success in the 1892 presidential election, when its candidate, James B. Weaver, won over 8% of the popular vote. Although the party eventually faded from the national stage, many of its reforms were later adopted by the Democratic and Republican parties.
Ralph Nader’s Green Party campaign in 2000: Nader, a consumer advocate, ran for president as the Green Party candidate and won 2.7% of the popular vote.
Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Party campaign in 2016: Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and won 3.3% of the popular vote.

It is worth noting that while these campaigns did not result in a presidential victory, they did have a significant impact on the outcome of the election and sparked important discussions about issues such as campaign finance reform and political polarization.

The incorporation of third-party agendas into platforms of major political parties serves as a barrier to third-party and independent candidate success.

How does the incorporation of third-party agendas into platforms of major political parties serve as a barrier to third-party and independent candidate success?
The incorporation of third-party agendas into the platforms of major political parties serves as a barrier to third-party and independent candidate success because it reduces the appeal of third-party candidates to voters. When the major parties adopt policies that were previously associated with third-party candidates, those candidates can no longer differentiate themselves from the major parties, and voters may be less likely to support them.

For example, if a third-party candidate runs on a platform of campaign finance reform and the major parties adopt similar policies, voters who support campaign finance reform may feel like their concerns have been addressed, and may therefore be less likely to vote for the third-party candidate. This can result in the third-party candidate failing to gain the support necessary to win elections, and may cause voters to feel that their voices are not being heard.

In this way, the incorporation of third-party agendas into the platforms of major political parties creates a situation where third-party and independent candidates are unable to differentiate themselves from the major parties, and as a result, they struggle to gain the support they need to be successful.

Topic 5.6: Interest Groups Influencing Policy Making

Interest groups may represent very specific or more general interests, and can educate voters and office holders, conduct lobbying, draft legislation, and mobilize membership to apply pressure on and work with legislators and government agencies.

What does it mean to “conduct lobbying?”
Lobbying is a political strategy used by individuals, organizations, and corporations to influence public policy and legislation. Lobbying is typically done by hiring lobbyists, who are professional advocates who represent their clients’ interests before the government. They communicate with elected officials, government agencies, and other policymakers to advocate for policies that are favorable to their clients.

In a government course, lobbying is often studied as a means of understanding the role that interest groups play in the policymaking process. Students learn about the different methods used by lobbyists to influence government decisions, such as direct lobbying (making direct appeals to elected officials), grassroots lobbying (mobilizing public support for a particular policy), and coalition building (working with other groups to advance a common cause). They also learn about the ethical and legal considerations involved in lobbying, such as disclosure requirements, campaign finance regulations, and the use of lobbying tactics that may be seen as unethical or inappropriate.

Overall, the study of lobbying is an important part of a government course as it provides insight into the ways in which different actors seek to influence the policymaking process and the impact that lobbying can have on the outcome of legislative decisions.

What does it mean for an interest group to “draft legislation” and what’s one famous example?
When an interest group drafts legislation, it means that the group has taken the initiative to write a proposed law and present it to a legislative body for consideration. Interest groups often draft legislation as a way to advance their goals and promote their causes.

An example of an interest group that has drafted legislation is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is a powerful lobbying group that advocates for gun rights and has drafted legislation aimed at loosening gun control laws. For example, the NRA has drafted bills to expand the right to carry concealed weapons and to block federal funding for research into gun violence.

It is worth noting that interest groups often have significant resources and a large network of supporters, which allows them to have a significant impact on the legislative process. While some view interest groups as a necessary component of the democratic process, others criticize them for having disproportionate influence and for being undemocratic.

In addition to working within party coalitions, interest groups exert influence through long-standing relationships with bureaucratic agencies, congressional committees, and other interest groups; such relationships are described as “iron triangles” and “issue networks,” and they help interest groups exert influence across political party coalitions.
Interest group influence may be impacted by:
— Inequality of political and economic resources
— Unequal access to decision makers
— “Free rider” problem

What’s the Free Rider Problem?
The free rider problem refers to the situation in which some individuals receive the benefits of a public good without contributing their fair share to its provision. In economics, the term “public good” refers to a product or service that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning that once it is provided, it is difficult or impossible to exclude anyone from using it, and its use by one person does not diminish its availability to others.

The free rider problem arises when individuals can receive the benefits of a public good without having to pay for it. For example, if a group of neighbors organize to pay for a shared community park, some individuals may choose to use the park without contributing their fair share to its maintenance and upkeep. These individuals are “free riders,” as they are taking advantage of the public good without bearing any of the costs.

The free rider problem is considered a major obstacle to the provision of public goods, as it discourages individuals from contributing to the provision of the good, and undermines the incentives for others to do so. This can result in a situation where public goods are under-provided, as individuals are reluctant to pay for them if they know that others will benefit without having to contribute.

Topic 5.7: Groups Influencing Policy Outcomes

Single-issue groups, ideological/social movements, and protest movements form with the goal of impacting society and policy making.

What’s a single issue group?
A single-issue group is a type of interest group that focuses on a single specific issue or policy area, rather than a broader range of issues. Single-issue groups are often formed around causes or issues that are very important to a particular group of people, and they advocate for policy changes that they believe will address the issue at hand.

Single-issue groups can be focused on a wide range of issues, including the environment, civil rights, gun control, and others. These groups often mobilize their supporters and engage in lobbying and advocacy efforts to influence elected officials and government policies. They may also engage in public education campaigns, grassroots organizing, and other activities to advance their cause.

Single-issue groups can be effective in bringing attention to important issues and can play a key role in shaping public opinion and policy. However, some argue that single-issue groups can also be divisive and can reduce the public’s attention to other important issues.

One famous single-issue group in modern American history is the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. NARAL was formed in the 1960s to advocate for reproductive rights and to work towards the legalization of abortion in the United States.

NARAL has been a prominent and influential voice in the ongoing debate over abortion and reproductive rights in the United States. The group has engaged in a range of advocacy and lobbying efforts, including lobbying lawmakers, organizing grassroots campaigns, and participating in legal challenges to restrictive abortion laws.

What’s an ideological/social movement?
An ideological or social movement is a collective effort by a group of people who share a common ideology, set of values, or goals, to bring about social change. Ideological and social movements are typically driven by a desire to address a perceived social or political problem, or to promote a particular vision of society.

Ideological and social movements can be driven by a wide range of factors, including economic, political, cultural, and historical forces. They may focus on specific issues such as civil rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, or social justice, or they may address more broad-based concerns such as political corruption, economic inequality, or human rights abuses.

Ideological and social movements often involve the development of a shared identity among participants, the formation of organizations to advance their goals, and the use of various tactics such as protests, marches, civil disobedience, and grassroots organizing. They can have a significant impact on public opinion and policy, and can lead to significant social and political changes over time.

Examples of ideological and social movements include the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the LGBTQ rights movement.

Competing actors such as interest groups, professional organizations, social movements, the military, and bureaucratic agencies influence policy making, such as the federal budget process, at key stages and to varying degrees.
Elections and political parties are related to major policy shifts or initiatives, occasionally leading to political realignments of voting constituencies.

What’s meant by “a political realignment of voting constituencies?”
A political realignment of voting constituencies refers to a significant shift in the political beliefs, attitudes, and voting patterns of a particular group of voters. This shift can lead to a lasting change in the political landscape and the formation of new political coalitions, alliances, and voting blocs.

Political realignments can occur as a result of a variety of factors, including changes in the political, economic, and social landscape, the emergence of new issues and challenges, and the emergence of new political leaders and movements. For example, a political realignment might occur as a result of a major economic recession, a major foreign policy crisis, or a significant change in public opinion on a particular issue.

Political realignments can have a significant impact on the political landscape, as they can lead to the emergence of new political parties, the decline of existing parties, and changes in the balance of power between different political groups. They can also shape the political discourse and the policymaking process, as new groups and movements emerge to advocate for their interests and goals.

Topic 5.8: Electing a President

The process and outcomes in U.S. presidential elections are impacted by
— Incumbency advantage phenomenon
— Open and closed primaries
— Caucuses
— Party conventions
— General (presidential) elections
— The Electoral College

What’s the “incumbency advantage phenomenon?”
The incumbency advantage phenomenon refers to the advantage that incumbent politicians have over their opponents in elections. Incumbent politicians typically have several advantages that make it easier for them to win re-election, including:

Name recognition: Incumbents are often better known to voters than their opponents, which can give them an advantage in elections.
Access to resources: Incumbents often have greater access to financial resources, political support, and campaign infrastructure than their opponents, which can give them an advantage in elections.
Constituency service: Incumbents can use their position to provide constituent services, such as helping constituents navigate government services or securing funding for local projects, which can help build support among voters.
Media coverage: Incumbents typically receive more media coverage than their opponents, which can give them more exposure and help build their reputation among voters.

These advantages, along with other factors such as the power of incumbency, the power of the political machine, and gerrymandering, make it difficult for challengers to defeat incumbent politicians. As a result, incumbents have a much higher rate of re-election compared to non-incumbent candidates. However, the incumbency advantage can be offset by other factors, such as scandals, shifting public opinion, and changes in the political landscape.

What does the word “incumbent” mean as opposed to the word “challenger?”
An incumbent is a current officeholder who is seeking re-election. An incumbent typically has an advantage in an election due to their name recognition, experience in office, and access to resources such as campaign funds, staff, and media exposure. Incumbents often benefit from the power and visibility that comes with holding office, and are seen as having a track record of performance that voters can evaluate.

A challenger, on the other hand, is a candidate who is seeking election to an office that they do not currently hold. Challengers typically face an uphill battle in an election, as they lack the name recognition and experience of the incumbent. However, challengers can offer fresh perspectives and new ideas, and may benefit from public dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

What’s the difference between an open primary and a closed primary?
Open primaries and closed primaries are two different types of primary elections that are used in the United States to select a political party’s nominee for the general election.

An open primary is a type of primary election in which any registered voter, regardless of their political party affiliation, can vote for the candidate of their choice. This means that a registered Democrat, for example, could vote in a Republican primary election and vice versa. The goal of an open primary is to allow all voters to participate in the primary election process, regardless of their political party affiliation, and to potentially attract a larger pool of voters to the polls.

A closed primary, on the other hand, is a type of primary election in which only registered members of a political party can vote for that party’s nominee. This means that a registered Democrat, for example, can only vote in the Democratic primary election, and a registered Republican can only vote in the Republican primary election. The goal of a closed primary is to limit the primary election to only the registered members of a particular political party, so that only party members can have a say in who the nominee will be.

What’s the difference between a caucus and a primary?”
Caucus and primary are two methods used by political parties in the United States to select their candidates for public office.

A caucus is a meeting of party members in a local area, who gather to discuss the party’s platform and select delegates to represent the area at the party’s national convention. Caucuses are typically more informal and participatory than primaries, and are often used by parties to mobilize and engage their supporters. Caucuses usually involve a series of speeches and debates, followed by a vote to select delegates to the party convention.

A primary, on the other hand, is an election in which registered voters can cast their ballots for a candidate running for office. Primaries are run by the states, and are usually open only to registered voters of the political party holding the primary. Primaries are typically more structured and straightforward than caucuses, and are used by parties as a way of determining the winner of the party’s nomination for office.

What’s a party convention?
A party convention in a presidential election year is a gathering of delegates from each state, who have been elected to represent their state at the national level. The purpose of the convention is to formally nominate a candidate for the presidency, as well as to adopt a party platform and conduct other business.

There are two major political parties in the United States, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and each holds its own convention in a presidential election year. The conventions are typically held in late summer or early fall, a few months before the general election.

At the convention, delegates cast their votes for the candidate they wish to nominate for the presidency. In most cases, the candidate who has received the majority of delegates’ votes during the primaries is the nominee, but sometimes multiple ballots may be required to secure a nomination. The convention also provides an opportunity for the party to showcase its platform and message, and to build momentum and enthusiasm heading into the general election.

The convention is a significant event in the presidential election process, as it sets the tone for the campaign and provides a platform for the nominee to introduce themselves to the American people and outline their vision for the future. The convention is also a major media event, attracting widespread coverage and attention from political observers and the general public.

What’s the difference between a general election and a primary election?
A general election is a nationwide election held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This is the election in which citizens of each state vote for the President of the United States. The candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of that state’s Electoral College votes. The candidate who wins a majority of the Electoral College votes, at least 270 of the 538 total, is elected as the President of the United States.

A primary election, on the other hand, is a preliminary election in which voters within each political party nominate a candidate to run in the general election. There are two types of primary elections in the United States: open primaries and closed primaries. In an open primary, voters can vote in either party’s primary election, regardless of their own political affiliation. In a closed primary, only registered members of a political party can vote in that party’s primary election. The outcome of the primary election determines which candidate will represent each political party in the general election.

The winner-take-all allocation of votes per state (except Maine and Nebraska) under the setup of the Electoral College compared with the national popular vote for president raises questions about whether the Electoral College facilitates or impedes democracy.

How does the Electoral College facilitate democracy?
Arguments that the Electoral College facilitates democracy:

Representation of small states: Proponents argue that the Electoral College ensures that smaller states have a voice in the election of the President. The winner-takes-all system used in most states gives each state a number of electoral votes equal to the number of its Representatives and Senators, ensuring that small states have a proportionate influence in the election.
Protection of federalism: The Electoral College is seen as a way of preserving federalism by balancing the power of the federal government with the power of the states. Proponents argue that the Electoral College ensures that the President is elected by a national consensus, rather than by a simple majority of the popular vote.
Stabilization of the political system: The Electoral College is seen as a stabilizing force in the political system, helping to prevent radical shifts in the political landscape. Proponents argue that the Electoral College ensures that Presidents are elected with broad support from across the country, rather than by a narrow majority of voters in a single region.

How does the Electoral College impede democracy?
Arguments that the Electoral College impedes democracy:

Undemocratic outcomes: Critics argue that the Electoral College can produce outcomes that are not in line with the popular vote. This has happened several times in U.S. history, most recently in the 2000 Presidential election, when George W. Bush was elected despite losing the popular vote.
Disenfranchisement of voters: Critics argue that the Electoral College system disenfranchises voters in states that are not considered to be “battleground” states. In these states, the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion, and voters may feel that their votes do not matter.
Inequality in representation: Critics argue that the Electoral College system gives disproportionate representation to voters in small states, at the expense of voters in larger states. This can lead to an imbalance in the representation of different regions of the country.
Lack of accountability: Critics argue that the Electoral College system makes it difficult for voters to hold Presidents accountable, as Presidents are elected through a complex system of electors rather than by a direct popular vote. This can lead to a disconnect between the President and the public, reducing accountability and trust in the political system.

Topic 5.9: Congressional Elections

The process and outcomes in U.S. congressional elections are impacted by:
— Incumbency advantage phenomenon
— Open and closed primaries
— Caucuses
— General (presidential and midterm) elections

Why does an incumbent have an advantage in Congressional Elections?
Members of Congress have an incumbency advantage for several reasons, including:

Name recognition: Incumbent members of Congress have the advantage of being well-known to their constituents, who are likely to have seen their name on the ballot before. This can give them a significant advantage over their opponents, who may be less familiar to voters.
Fundraising advantage: Incumbent members of Congress have an established network of donors and are often able to raise significantly more money for their campaigns than their opponents. This can give them a significant advantage in terms of being able to reach more voters through advertising and other campaign efforts.
Access to government resources: Incumbent members of Congress have access to government resources and staff, which they can use to their advantage during their campaigns. For example, they may be able to use official communications to promote their re-election efforts, or use their position to take credit for legislative accomplishments that benefit their district.
Partisan advantage: In many cases, incumbents have an advantage simply because they are running in districts that are heavily tilted towards their political party. This can make it difficult for challengers, regardless of their qualifications or campaign efforts, to overcome the partisan advantage held by the incumbent.
Public perception of effectiveness: Incumbent members of Congress who have been in office for a while have a track record of legislation they have passed or sponsored, which can help build a perception of their effectiveness among their constituents. Voters may be more likely to re-elect an incumbent if they believe that the incumbent has been successful in representing their interests and achieving results in office.

Overall, the combination of these factors can create a powerful incumbency advantage, making it difficult for challengers to defeat incumbent members of Congress in elections.

Topic 5.10: Modern Campaigns

The benefits and drawbacks of modern campaigns are represented by:
— Dependence on professional consultants
— Rising campaign costs and intensive fundraising efforts
— Duration of election cycles
— Impact of and reliance on social media for campaign communication and fundraising

What is meant by the claim that “the benefits and drawbacks of modern campaigns are represented by the duration of election cycles?
The duration of election cycles can both benefit and drawback modern campaigns in congressional elections. Here are some ways in which this is the case:

Benefits:

Time for incumbents to establish their record: Incumbents who have been in office for a while have the opportunity to build a track record of accomplishments, which can help to establish their reputation and make them more attractive to voters.
Opportunities for challengers to build name recognition: Challengers, on the other hand, have more time to build name recognition and connect with voters. They can use this time to meet with constituents, attend events, and build a network of supporters that will help them in their campaign.
Time for issue development: The longer election cycle also allows for the development of issues and policy debates, which can help to engage voters and educate them on the positions of the candidates.

Drawbacks:

Cost of campaigns: The longer election cycle means that campaigns are more expensive, as candidates must maintain a continuous presence in their districts and invest in advertising and other campaign efforts over an extended period of time.
Voter fatigue: The prolonged duration of the election cycle can also lead to voter fatigue, as they are constantly bombarded with political messages and campaign advertisements. This can lead to a decrease in voter turnout, as voters become disinterested or disengaged from the process.
Polarization and negativity: The longer election cycle can also exacerbate polarization and negativity in campaigns, as candidates are under more pressure to differentiate themselves from their opponents and to attack their opponents’ records and positions.

Overall, the duration of election cycles in congressional elections can have both positive and negative impacts on modern campaigns. While the longer cycle can allow for the development of issues and opportunities for candidates to build name recognition, it can also lead to increased costs,

Topic 5.11: Campaign Finance

Federal legislation and case law pertaining to campaign finance demonstrate the ongoing debate over the role of money in political and free speech, as set forth in:
— Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which was an effort to ban soft money and reduce attack ads with “Stand by Your Ad” provision: “I’m [candidate’s name] and I approve this message”
— Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which ruled that political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment

What’s the difference between the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the case of Citizens United?
Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case that was decided in 2010. The case dealt with the issue of campaign finance and the regulation of political spending by corporations and unions. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, held that restrictions on such spending violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and struck down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

The BCRA was enacted in 2002 as a response to concerns about the influence of money in politics and the potential for corruption. The law imposed restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions, and regulated the timing, content, and funding of political advertisements. The Citizen United decision challenged these restrictions and effectively invalidated key provisions of the BCRA, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements, so long as they were independent of candidate campaigns.

In comparison, the Citizen United case significantly altered the regulatory landscape of campaign finance and has led to increased spending and influence by corporations and wealthy individuals in the political process. The BCRA, on the other hand, aimed to limit the influence of money in politics and prevent corruption, but its provisions were limited by the Citizen United decision.

What’s the difference between hard money and soft money?
Hard money and soft money are terms used to describe the types of campaign contributions that candidates for political office in the United States can receive.

Hard money is a term used to describe contributions that are made directly to a candidate’s campaign and are subject to federal campaign finance laws. Hard money contributions are limited in amount, with individuals being able to contribute up to $2,800 per election to a candidate, and political action committees (PACs) being able to contribute up to $5,000 per election. Hard money contributions must be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and are typically used to pay for campaign expenses such as advertising, polling, and staff salaries.

Soft money, on the other hand, is a term used to describe contributions that are made to political parties and are not subject to federal campaign finance laws. Soft money contributions can be unlimited in amount and do not have to be disclosed to the FEC. Soft money contributions are typically used to pay for party-building activities, such as voter registration drives, and are not allowed to be used directly for the benefit of a particular candidate.

Debates have increased over free speech and competitive and fair elections related to money and campaign funding (including contributions from individuals, political action committees [PACs], and political parties).

What’s a PAC?

A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a type of organization in the United States that raises money from individuals, corporations, or labor unions to support political campaigns. PACs are separate from candidate committees and are generally organized to support specific candidates, causes, or legislation. They are allowed to make contributions to candidates, political parties, and other political committees. PACs must abide by certain rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), including contribution limits and disclosure requirements. PACs play an important role in American politics by allowing individuals and groups to pool their resources and have a greater impact on the political process.

Different types of PACs influence elections and policy making through fundraising and spending.

What does it mean when one says, “different types of PACs influence elections and policy making through fundraising and spending?”
Political Action Committees (PACs) play a significant role in American politics by influencing elections and policy making through their fundraising and spending activities. There are several different types of PACs, each with their own unique goals and methods for influencing the political process. Here are some of the most common types of PACs:

Independent expenditure-only committees (Super PACs): These committees are permitted to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates or parties. Super PACs are often associated with independent expenditure efforts, such as funding issue-based advertisements.
Leadership PACs: These PACs are often established by elected officials, including members of Congress, to support other political candidates and committees. Leadership PACs can be used to build relationships with other politicians, establish a political network, and support favored candidates and causes.
Business PACs: These PACs are established by corporations and trade associations to support candidates and committees that align with their interests. Business PACs often lobby for specific policy changes, such as tax cuts or regulatory changes.
Labor PACs: These PACs are established by labor unions to support candidates and committees that support their members’ interests, such as workers’ rights, job security, and collective bargaining.
Ideological PACs: These PACs are established to support candidates and committees that align with a specific ideology, such as environmentalism, social conservatism, or libertarianism.

Each type of PAC influences elections and policy making in different ways, but all use their fundraising and spending activities to promote their preferred candidates, causes, and policies. Through their efforts, PACs have the ability to shape the political landscape and help determine the outcome of elections and the direction of public policy.

What’s the difference between a PAC, Super PAC, and an interest group
A PAC, interest group, and super PAC are all terms used to describe organizations that seek to influence the political process. However, each term has a specific meaning:

A PAC, or Political Action Committee, is a type of interest group that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to political candidates, parties, or causes. PACs are organized around specific issues, industries, or ideologies and are used as a means of exerting political influence. PACs are regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and are subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements.
An interest group is a type of organization that seeks to influence public policy on behalf of its members or a specific cause. Interest groups can include labor unions, trade associations, consumer groups, and advocacy organizations. Interest groups can engage in lobbying, grassroots lobbying, and political campaign activities, among other things, to advance their interests.
A super PAC, or independent expenditure-only committee, is a type of PAC that is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions. Super PACs are required to operate independently of candidates and political parties and cannot make direct contributions to political campaigns. However, they can spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates through independent expenditures such as television ads, mailings, and online advertising

In summary, while all three types of organizations seek to influence the political process, they differ in their structure, funding sources, and the type of activities they are allowed to engage in.

Topic 5.12: The Media

Traditional news media, new communication technologies, and advances in social media have profoundly influenced how citizens routinely acquire political information, including news events, investigative journalism, election coverage, and political commentary.
The media’s use of polling results to convey popular levels of trust and confidence in government can impact elections by turning such events into “horse races” based more on popularity and factors other than qualifications and platforms of candidates.

What’s horserace journalism?
Horse race journalism refers to a type of election coverage that focuses primarily on the mechanics of the political campaign and the strategies used by candidates and their campaigns, rather than on the policy positions and substantive issues being debated. Horse race journalism often emphasizes polls, fundraising totals, campaign tactics, and candidate gaffes, rather than the important issues facing voters and the candidates’ proposals for addressing them.

Critics argue that horse race journalism can have a negative impact on the democratic process by failing to provide voters with the information they need to make informed decisions. This type of coverage can also encourage negative campaigning since candidates are often motivated to attack each other rather than engage in substantive discussions of the issues.

In the era of 24-hour news cycles and the increasing use of social media, horse race journalism has become increasingly prevalent in American elections. However, many journalists and media outlets are now working to shift the focus of their coverage towards substantive issues and policy positions, in order to provide voters with the information they need to make informed decisions.

Topic 5.13: Changing Media

Political participation is influenced by a variety of media coverage, analysis, and commentary on political events.
The rapidly increasing demand for media and political communications outlets from an ideologically diverse audience have led to debates over media bias and the impact of media ownership and partisan news sites.
The nature of democratic debate and the level of political knowledge among citizens is impacted by
— Increased media choices
— Ideologically oriented programming
— Consumer-driven media outlets and emerging technologies that reinforce existing beliefs
— Uncertainty over the credibility of news sources and information

What is “ideologically oriented programming?”
“Ideologically oriented programming” refers to media content that is produced and distributed with a specific political or social viewpoint. This type of programming is designed to promote a particular ideology or set of beliefs, and is often created with the goal of influencing public opinion and shaping public discourse.

Ideologically oriented programming can take many forms, including talk radio shows, cable news networks, and online content. It can cover a wide range of political and social issues, including foreign policy, economic policy, and social issues such as gun control, immigration, and reproductive rights.

Critics argue that ideologically oriented programming can contribute to the fragmentation and polarization of American society, as it often reinforces existing political and cultural divides and encourages people to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that this type of programming allows people to access information and perspectives that are not represented in the mainstream media, and provides a voice for underrepresented or marginalized viewpoints.

Regardless of one’s views on ideologically oriented programming, it is an increasingly influential force in American politics and media, shaping the national discourse and influencing public opinion on a wide range of important issues.

What are “consumer-driven media outlets?”
“Consumer-driven media outlets” refers to media outlets that are driven by audience demand and consumer preferences, as opposed to being driven by traditional gatekeepers such as editors or publishers. These outlets may include social media platforms, user-generated content websites, and other forms of digital media that allow users to create and distribute their own content.

Consumer-driven media outlets are characterized by their emphasis on user engagement and interactivity, as well as their ability to reach large, diverse audiences through the power of the internet. They allow consumers to control the information they receive and the types of media they consume, and often allow for the creation of niche communities and echo chambers based on specific interests or political viewpoints.

While consumer-driven media outlets have many advantages, such as their ability to democratize information and allow for the creation of diverse, user-generated content, they also have some drawbacks. These include the spread of false information, the amplification of extreme or fringe viewpoints, and the fragmentation of public discourse.

Despite these drawbacks, consumer-driven media outlets continue to play an increasingly influential role in shaping public opinion and driving political discourse, as more and more people turn to these outlets as their primary source of news and information.

APGov teachers and students reading this post, find anything amiss?