* Controversy- etymology (word origin)
From Latin: “against” (contra) and “versus” (verse)
Contra = against or in comparison with
Implies difference of opinion or contrast
Verse = line of writing
Implies opinions expressed in some type of public arena
Controversy- definition
A prolonged public dispute or debate. Disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
“Prolonged” - matters are unsettled over time, lasting
“Public” – not private, concerning people as a whole
“Dispute / debate” – challenge, taking exception to
“Opinion” – personal belief or judgment
Synonyms of controversy- disagreement, difference
ALSO- contention, strife, argument, dissonance, lack of harmony, heated conflict
Controversy- Denotation v. connotation
Denotation = meaning
The most direct, exact, specific meaning of a work or expression
Literal meaning- meaning without interpretation, embellishment, or exaggeration
A dictionary definition.
Subjective and “cold”
Connotation = suggestion
Emotional coloration
Suggested or implied meaning in addition to what is explicit, objected, denoted
Impression that goes beyond a defined meaning
Emotional association with a word, phrase, idea
Subjective and emotively “loaded”
September 17
Democracy- people, common people. People’s rule.
Types of democracy
Direct- when all members of a community (polity, group) gather together and individuals cast a vote or make decisions=each person is given a chance to influence the policymaking process
Representative- when one person or a group of people are elected and assigned with the task of making decisions on behalf of the group of citizens (“constituency”) that they represent
Voters- demos – choose (elect) representatives for a public office through the act of voting
Voting = a formal expression of preference for a candidate that is made known through a marked ballot
We assume that we as voters choose our representatives
Why do incumbents have such an advantage?
Electoral benefits (office; paid employees and staff and unpaid staff, unlimited paid trips to their districts, unlimited long-distance calls, providing services to and serving voters)
Campaign contributions (money; financial backing by interest groups- “war chests”)
Name recognition (running at least one successful campaign, media exposure)
…and… electoral districts?
Representatives choose voters
“As a mapmaker, I can have more of an impact on an election than a campaign.. more of an impact than a candidate.” –David Winston, GOP redistricting consultant in 1990 redistricting- the process of redrawing legislative districts if you live in the united states, you live in a district. All representatives to the US are house of reps, state legislatures, and many local offices are elected from districts goal of redistricting- to eliminate competition, to create “safe” districts for a political party.
“safe” district/seat- a seat that at election is sure to be held by the same party as held before.
“Marginal” district/seat- a seat held with a small majority in a legislative election. *

1776- the continental congress adopts the d\Declaration of Independence
13 American colonies (then at war with Great Britain) are independent states
July 4: the wording of the Declaration is approved by congress
1781- the Articles of Confederation established (written in 1777)
The US is a confederation of 13 states: individual states maintain considerable autonomy
Congress has limited powers
Declare wars, establish army and navy, sign treaties, oversee Indian affairs
Regulate weights and measures, run post office
BUT no mandatory power to raise taxes
No Executive or Judiciary powers vested in congress- weak and leaderless government
1787- 55 delegates meet in Philadelphia to produce new constitutional arrangements (originally, to amend the Articles of Confederation): representatives from 12 states attend (except for Rhode Island)
55 are to be known as the founding fathers
Delegates from the state legislatures BUT not directly elected by the people
A secret meeting- in a sense that the delegates lacked the universal mandate-> thus, extra freedom to debate (given the lack of accountability)
Plan: first, produce a document-> then, lobby for its approval
39 out of 55 signed the Constitution
Beard’s Argument #1- Brown’s Counterargument
Charles Beard
1913 published economic interpretation of the constitution of the united states
“Investment portfolios” of the Founding Fathers
Men of considerable “personalty” (holdings other than real estate; bonds):
Public security interests (gov’t bonds)
Land speculation
Money loaned
Investments in manufacture and commerce
Investments in slave trade and slave ownership
Conclusion: they only represented economic interest of financial elites (maximized their financial gains)

* Robert Brown * 50 years after Beard * Response to Argument 1: also looks as investment portfolios of FF * Notices they do have personalty, but ALSO have realty (holdings in real estate) * Says beard failed to recognize this bc: * Beard used secondary sources (method) * Beard is not critical of sources (ideology) * Says men motivated to protect both and * Create laws protecting everyone’s property (realty in particular) * Protect their and everyone else’s rights * Attacks messenger (Beard) which, in turn, undermines Beard’s argument * Appeals to emotions * Concludes that as long as the FF benefitted so did the country as a whole (they protected everyone’s interests) * Similar to the principles of Reagan (trickle down economics) * Beard’s 2nd Argument: * Ratification of the Constitution (through state conventions) * Says ¾ of eligible voters did not vote * 1/6 of the eligible voters voted in favor * Argues that 75% abstained from voting and therefor did not support the Constitution * Of the eligible voters, 8.5% voted against the constitution * Only 16.5% voted in favor of the Constitution * Says there was NO consensual support of the Const. * Concludes that population (adult white males) and the states did NOT support the const. * Brown’s Response to Argument 2: * Says the 75% who didn’t vote are indifferent (tacit support) * ONLY 8.5% of ALL eligible voters voted against * 16.5% voted for it * Argues this means that 91.5% of voters liked it and all 13 states did approve of the const. * Concludes: * Consensus and no partisanship * Ratification followed (democratic) procedural practices of the times * Beard’s argument and Brown’s Counterargument (main focal points) * Beard: personalty interests…Brown: realty interests * ***Look on PowerPoint on oncourse for rest & interpretations!! *** * * 9/10 * Who elects the president? * Originally believed that President is elected by a group of older statesmen (the electoral college) but the emergence of political parties with competing interests and high degree of partisanship led to: * Article II section 1 and the 12th amendment of the constitution: * The president is elected by the electoral college, Americans do not vote directly for a presidential candidate * Members of the electoral college are elected through popular elections on state level * Electors are selected on a state by state basis * Names are not on the ballot * Voters actually choose electors * Number of electors equals the number of representatives and senators in each state * Rules of selecting the electors are determined by individual states but: * States follow the winner takes all mechanism (winning candidate gets all electoral votes from the state) * Who can be an elector? * Any citizen who is not a senator or a representative and a citizen who has not “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US, or given aid tor comfort to the enemies thereof” * Who are the electors? * Party officials, party leaders, people with direct affiliation with presidential candidates * Electors never meet as one body * Meet in their state capitals on the Monday after the second Wednesday of December and cast their votes on separate ballots for president and vice president * When voting is done, electors certify the vote and send results to DC. * Candidate with the highest number of votes in the electoral college is the president for four years, formally decided at the joint session of congress * If no candidate receives the absolute majority of electoral votes (50%+1), the House of Representatives chooses the Presidential candidate from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Senate chooses the Vice President from among the two candidates who received the most electoral votes. * Electoral votes * Andrew Jackson 99 * John Quincy Adams 84 * William Harris Crawford 41 * Henry Clay 37 * Total: 261 * Needed to win: 261/2+1=131 * Problem? Jackson had only 99 electoral votes that is, 32 short of the required majority * Solution? Vote in the house of representatives * Result? * Adams 87 * Jackson 71 * Crawford 54 * 9/15 notes * -It is possible for a candidate to not get a single person’s vote- not one – in 39 states or the district of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states: California, new york, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, new jersey, north Carolina, Georgia, Virginia * -There are 538 total votes in the Electoral College and a presidential candidate must win a majority – 270 – electoral votes to be elected. Since 11 of the 12 states in the chart above account for 271 votes, a candidate could win these states, lose the other 39, and still be elected. * -Arguments that we should NOT have Electoral College * Lawrence Longley v. Robert Weissberg * Longley: “deplorable institution”- 1. Faithless electors * uncertain election outcomes * Weissberg on Longley: 1. Faithless electors * never affected outcome of elections * Longley: 2. Winner takes all. * No absolute majority when more than two candidates * magnifies the power of large states * Weissberg: 2. Winner takes all. * Partisan interest groups in large states never decided/influenced outcomes or gained direct benefits after elections * Longley: 3. Constant two * smallest state have disproportionate amount of power/influence * Weissberg: 3. Constant two * perhaps, but prevents fraud, since outcome is in no doubt * Longley: 4. popular v. electoral vote * problem with legitimacy (minority) presidents * Weissberg: 4. Popular vs. electoral vote * unlikely outcome, happened 3 times * Longley: 5. Contingency procedure (house of representatives) * constitutional crisis if deadlock in the house of representatives * Weissberg: 5. Contingency procedure (house of representatives) * unlikely occurrence (happened once and never past 1824) * * Weissberg “defending a sin”
1. Conservative arguments the system is proven and workable. It works! Its stable!
Conserve, preserve
Practical view; reform, gradual changes
Emphasis on stability; preserves a two-party system in which two major parties:
Must seek a reasonable compromise
Must build broad-based coalitions (thus avoiding divisive politics)
2. Pragmatic argument makes presidential campaign manageable provides little incentives for fraud in small states allows candidates to focus on swing and independent voters- “more important voters” total cost of presidential elections (both candidates):
2008- $1.6 billion
2012- $2.0 billion *
Weissberg Conclusion- ABOLISHING WOULD BE A MISTAKE!
Provides stability and manageability to political system
Provides for modifications if needed
Longley conclusion- ABOLISH!
Neither certain in operation
Nor neutral * September 22, 15
Electoral benefits- office; paid employees and staff and unpaid staff, unlimited paid trips to their districts, unlimited long-distance calls, providing services to and serving voters
Redistricting=the process of redrawing legislative districts
If you live in the united states, you live in a district. All representatives to the US house of representatives, state legislatures and many local offices are elected from districts
Goal- eliminate competition
Gerrymandering- also known as redistricting
Manipulating the boundaries of an electoral district to favor one party
Derived from name of governor Elbridge Gerry of MA
Packing- concentrating like-minded voters together in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts
Cracking- spreading like-minded voters apart across multiple districts to dilute their voting power in each
Is gerrymandering effective?
How redistricting is done
The constitution requires that the house seats should be reapportioned among the states every ten years (following the census)
Issue: but… the constitution does not specify how the states should draw district lines
The constitution does not even specify whether districts are to be required at all
Its expected that the states must make a good-faith effort to draw districts with the same number of people in each district within the state
Who? Who decides how districts are drawn?
State legislatures (note: the majority party controls the process)
Bi partisan or non-partisan commissions (note: the state governor and majority party leaders control who is appointed to these commissions) * Challenge? Can gerrymandering be challenged in courts?
Supreme court opined that political gerrymandering claims could be properly be challenged in courts and manageable standards of redistricting could be
Affects?
Computers
Mapping technology
Detailed knowledge of the political preferences of voters from registration records *