Choose exactly four of the following questions, and answer each chosen item with a paragraph that addresses
the question directly and explains the subject meaningfully. Keep in mind that when you mention any term or
concept that is not common knowledge, you must explain what it means. You are free to look up information
from anywhere you choose, but there is to be no copying of sentences from any published or online source, or
any collaboration between students in the writing of these answers. Read all questions very carefully.
- If you wanted to know what percentage of Americans think the electoral college should be abolished, what
would be the most valid way to find out?
- What practical effect did the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
have on campaign finance laws? Which of the two major political parties was furious at the ruling, and why?
- In the presidential election process, what is the relationship between the popular vote and the electoral vote,
and in that context, what is the definition of a battleground state?
- If, in a presidential election, the two major candidates were to get exactly the same number of electoral
votes, what would be the method for choosing the president and the vice-president?
- In the twentieth century, there were two major changes in party loyalty involving race. What were those two
major changes, and in what context did each of them take place?
- Which of the two major political parties would be more likely to support a bill in Congress that would create
federally funded after-school recreation programs for low-income children, and how would that fit in with that
party’s general vision and ideology?
- What is an example, by description, of an interest group using litigation to influence public policy? (Make
sure you know what the word litigation means, looking it up if needed.)
by writing “in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others”. Paragraph? Another large incentive for the British fleet in attacking the French, was prize money. Upon capturing an enemy ship, every member of the crew would receive a ‘cut’ of prize money. The captain would receive a tremendous sum, 3/8 of the captured ship’s value. The remainder would be split among the rest of the crew; a member of the crew could earn more than a year’s wages from one captured vessel. The zest the crew would fight with was in large part due to the monetary reward affiliated with victory. Whatever the individual motivation, the Royal Navy could not be matched in its aggression. Dominating the battle of Trafalgar was no exception. Regardless of tactics, the fervour of the attack, the passion and the morale with which the British executed the assault, evoked a desperation in the French which arguably “won them the battle before a cannon was fired.” Aggression alone was not sufficient. Skilled seamanship was also necessary. Skill of British commanding officers played a crucial role in the Battle of Trafalgar. Officers were tasked with directing the crew in most actions they performed. Superior officers allowed for superior tactics and manoeuvres. Without officers, ships of the line would cease to function, let alone fight an enemy. The better the officers, the better the ship. To ensure the best possible commanding officers, the Royal Navy practiced meritocracy. Essentially, the only way to progress through the ranks of the Royal Navy was through excellence and recognition. Contrary to the British army, (and the French and Spanish navies for that matter) it was forbidden in the Royal Navy for noble families to purchase a commission. Allen Lane stresses that “The officers of the Royal Navy were both professional and veterans of war”. Even British admirals came from the middle class including both Nelson, and Collingwood. Aspiring officers would have to pass a lieutenant’s exam in front of a board of senior captains. The French and the Spanish navies did not follow the British example. Being an officer was associated with status and class, only available to rich nobility, independent of experience. Villeneuve and the Spanish Admiral Gravina both bought positions in their respective navies. Furthermore, Spain and France even allowed the purchaseof petty officer commissions. These individuals that were more directly involved with operating the ship to be bought. As a result, the French and the Spanish had less capable officers, leading to a generally poorer quality fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar compared to the British. Vargas Ponce, A Spanish naval historian of >GET ANSWER