Template

• Yes (1) →

• No (1) →

• Yes (2) →

• No (2) →

• Yes (3) →

• No (3) →

• No (1) →

• Yes (1) →

• No (2) →

• Yes (2) →

• No (3) →

• Yes (3) →

Democracy + Participation

Evaluate the view that the incumbent has significant advantages in presidential election

• Yes (1) → Executive control + experience → Hispanic judge + Osama bin laden Mit Romney

• No (1) → Executive control + experience → President is head of executive + head of state → Bush ‘read my lips no taxes’ + poor econ management + healthcare Obama

• Yes (2) → Name recognition + media attention → Rose Garden Strategy → US officials in Benghazi in 2012

• No (2) → Name recognition + media attention → TV debates (push agenda + reduce credibility) 2020 Biden vs Trump economy →

• Yes (3) → Lack of primary challenge → attacked by members of own party → 2012 Mit Romeney vs Ron Paul at a party convention → incumbrenety no deal with it

• No (3) → Lack of primary challenge → incumbents do face primary challenges this can be damaging → provides challenger opportunity show pol strength → removes media focus → 1992 George Bush Snr won a primary challenge but lost the election → undermines cred and support in

Evaluate the view that the primary process promotes democracy

• Yes (1) → Get to know candidates → Biden = economic stimulus + environment

• No (1) → reduces credibility → discredit each other → Crux + Trump tax affairs 2020 + created internal division

• Yes (2) → see who is most popular with public → who will be most successful → 2007 Obama over Clinton → who is most electable

• No (2) → timings → primaries do not happen all at one place at the same time → parties can use to advantage/ disadvantage orders → 2024 election Dems will change order of primaries

• Yes (3) → multiple candidates to choose from → 2016 Sanders vs Clinton → good rep dem

• No (3) → different laws within states → parties can intervene → Dem Party nevada 2016 changed laws mid election disadvantaged Sanders

Evaluate the view that interest groups enhance democracy

• Yes (1) → education → grassroots highlight key issues → gov response = education = AIF-CIO 2000 volutneers 6 million voters swing states against trump → reduce pol apathy

• No (1) → violence → undermines rep dem → inhibits another person’s individual liberties → NAACP North Carolina occupied offices of senior politicians restriciting rep process

• Yes (2) → restrict gov → help stop corruption or self-interest - maximising interests of the people + help force government to keep policy promises → protect minority rights when threatened → NAACP protects voting rights checks politicans want to reduce black people vote

• No (2) → no mandate to influence policy but can do so anyway → undermines rep dem → can prevent manifesto promises → AARP prevented Obama Care → clear in manifesto

• Yes (3) → minorty voices can be heard (maximises which and powers)→ rep specific groups → enhances dem → American Indian Movement is a Native American grassroots movement founded to promote Indigenous rights

• No (3) → Over-representation of minority groups + marginalisation of other groups – power based on money – professional lobbyists → Of 106 members who exited congressional offices in January 2019 49% found employment with a lobbying firm → magnify loud voices

Constitution

Evaluate the view that the formal process for amendments more advantages than disadvantages

• Yes (1) → Protects states → US trad reppect state rights upheld 10th amendment → equal rep Electoral collge → 2005 Abolish Electoral College Amendment failed

• No (1) → undemocratic → 2/3 House supermajority needed+ 13/50 can say no → Flag protection 50% both houses no pass

• Yes (2) → protects individual and state rights from individuals (abuse of power) →encourages bipartisanship key fundamental founding fathers → 2006 Bush partial veto powers failed Congress → 2/3s

• No (2) → Supreme Court = unelected → final say on insitutional changes → Edwin Meese → Us has imperial judiciary with ineffective constitutional limits

• Yes (3) → ill thought through amendments not passed → bipartisanship →prevents proposals of kneejerk reactions to social change → Federal Marriage Amendment failed (define marriage between men and women)

• No (3) → Difficult to change → times changed since 1787 → difficult to incoropate + improve workings constituoion → consenus gender equality but equal rights amenement failed multiple times → would make US more representative of 21stc values

Evaluate whether the rise of the federal government has limited the power of states

• No (1) → historically states had more influence over electorate → states = domestic (education + finances) & federation = foreign affairs + security → federal gov couldn’t levy income tax until 16th amendment ratified

• Yes (1) → since 1929 economic crash + response → Roosevelt new policies = more popular →increased feds power → Social Security Administration Roosevelt 1935 → power more presidential

• No (2) → fed + states = interconnected → individual policy areas controlled together to govern US→ must work together → feds = income tax (16th) but states sales tax

• Yes (2) → awarding grants can come with criteria to fulfil federal policies → states need resources + must comply → Race to the Top Obama 2009 $4.3 billion grant meet 20 education criteria

• No (3) → states can created own laws independent from feds → 10th amendment → SC limits fed → shelby vs Holder = unconstitutional due to parts Voters Rights Act

• Yes (3) → states must comply federal law → federal mandates lead to conflict between gov + sates → can try to overturn but unsuccessful → 2022 Biden Respect for Marriage (32 states gay marriage = bad) → reduces state independence

Supreme Court

Evaluate the view that the appointment process to the Supreme Court is weak

• No (1) → Independence → life tenure → allows judiciaries to interpret the constitution without consequences or repercussions → Ruth Ginsberg 1993-2020

• Yes (1) → Lack accountability → life tenure → less accountable → less likely to attuned to societal changes as they are not taxed by reappointment → dobbs vs Jackson womens health

• No (2) →Deliberative and rigorous confirmation process → extensive scrutiny into legal proceedings + public hearings → insight into ethical concerns or anthing which would compromise impartiality → Sotomayor scrutinised for her apparent gender bias

• Yes (2) → Nomination process is politicised → President’s own preference influences SC as they appoint justices → highly politcal → based on political ideologoes rather than soley legal qualifications → Garland refused

• No (3) →Scrutiny into legal careers → allows for most experienced justices to interpret the constitution → highly qualified with legal knowledge + deep undertsanding of constitution strengthens SC ability → 7 of 9 justices since the Clinton presidency worked in the US circuit courts

• Yes (3) → Hyper politicised confirmation → battleground for political parties to scrutinise → intense debates + potential character assasinations → Helen meyers declined to become a judge as her political ideology was scrutinised

Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court is effective at protecting rights

• Yes (1) →powerful → due to judicial review and entrenched BOR SC is the most superior legal authority to defend rights → Roe vs Wade

• No (1) → Imprecise and can be ignored → SC powerless if State officials wish to ignore rulings → cannot create or propose legislation, only interpret and uphold constitution → react vs proactive → SC ruling overturned with amendment to Constitution → 15th - 17th amendment after Civil War

• Yes (2) →Will → SC identify and protect rights → will deliberatley choose a case to confirm a rights exsistence to the Court → Roe vs Wade through privacy laws to create the right to have an abortion

• No (2) →Will → can choose what cases to hear thus may not protect all rights → SC with a particular poltical ideological leaning may choose to hear cases which uphold state rights over individual rights → Dobbs vs Jackson deliberatley contrived

• Yes (3) → ideologies → moral imperative → defend rights based on dominant ideological view → liberal dominance = LGBTQ, repbulican = state rights → 2nd amendment

• No (3) →due to vaugeness of constitution SC only legilsatve body which can intepret the constitution → due to poltiicised nature, can lead to prioritising one ideolofy over an another → Obgerfell vs Hobbs right to marriage over right to religion

Power of the Supreme Court is limited

• No (1) → shape meaning of constitution → powerful → due to judicial review and entrenched BOR SC is the most superior legal authority to defend rights → Roe vs Wade

• Yes (1) →Imprecise and can be ignored → SC powerless if State officials wish to ignore rulings → cannot create or propose legislation, only interpret and uphold constitution → react vs proactive → SC ruling overturned with amendment to Constitution → 15th - 17th amendment after Civil War

• No (2) →Independence

• Yes (2) → Clearly political → Garland

• No (3) →Interpretation

• Yes (3) → Interpretation → has to be brought to them

Radical equality

• Yes (1) →Voting → began with the 15th amendment to the Constitution and was continued by the Voting Rights Act which allowed the federal government to block any discriminatory state voting laws

• No (1) →Voting → tried to reduce black people ability to vote → he Shelby County decision has limited federal powers and allowed discriminatory practices to return  → In 2020, the FEC (federal election commission) argued that over 20 million people may have been prevented from voting due to registration and polling issues

• Yes (2) →Representation → everyone can be in Congress → 54 black Congresspeople and 7 black senators + in 2008 the US elected its first black president

• No (2) → Representation → ‘popularist’ (are in the majority) strategy which started as Nixon’s ‘southern strategy’ a policy to attract southern democrat voters ->  lead to increasing attempts to impose voting restrictions (Shelby County) and ethnic, sexual and cultural uniformity into state and federal law  → eg Tennessee have recently started to introduce restrictions on sex education in school and a ban drag acts performances

• Yes (3) → Affirmative Action → minority people greater access to education → more representation in universities and federal government → 2022 Harvard confirmed that they would continue to have diversity quotas

• No (3) →Affirmative Action → ‘positive discrimination’ = controversial revent people achieving places on merit  Eg from the late 90’s onwards the pressure group ‘ the american civil rights institute has been campaigning against affirmative action

Supreme Court and Policy

Upholding policy One might suggest that the Supreme court has not impacted public policy This is because they have a tendency to simply uphold policy already decided For example, Sebelius 2012 was upheld, allowing the ACA of 2010 to continue despite the suggestion it obstructs the interstate commerce clause This was also seen in Medical Services v Russo 2020, which prevented Louisiana from restricting abortion law Thus, we can suggest that the Supreme court does not entirely affect public policy, but rather upholds the legislation made by the executive and legislature branches

However The Supreme Court has the ability to prevent individual aspects of public policy or even strike it down entirely For example, the sebelius 2012 had parts struck down such as the ‘coercion’ of states to use ACA 2010 using the federal budget Furthermore, the decision of Medical Services v Russo 2020 was since overdrawn in the removal of Roe v Wade 2022, in turn this allowed states - around 16 to make abortion law entirely or partially illegal Therefore although some may suggest that the Supreme Court does not impact policy as it tends to uphold it, this is limited. The Supreme Court has the ability to strike down individual parts of legislation such as in ACA 2010, as well as outlaw it entirely based on overruling previous decisions.

Removing policy The supreme Court also has the ability to remove policy For example, Citizens United v FEC emerged following the federal election campaign act of 1971, reinforcing the right to freedom of expression, as well as Mccutheon v FEC 2014 removing the cap on spending limits Furthermore, US v Texas 2016 overrode Obama’s DAPA 2014 executive order, which allowed parents of AMericans to remain in the country

One might argue that the Supreme Court does not impact public policy that much For example, in 2022, DAPA was reintroduced by president Biden Furthermore, there were already loopholes in the federal election campaign act of 1971 Thus although one might suggest that the Supreme Court is limited in that the other branches can simply implement new legislation or amendments to overturn decisions, this is increasingly difficult with the inability to pass amendments due to partisanship. Furthermore, the decision on DAPA had a great impact, directly interfering with President Obama’s manifesto promises of immigration.

Creating new policy Furthermore, one might suggest that the Supreme Court has impacted public policy, due to its quasi-legislative structure For example, the supreme court legalised same-sex marriage in obergefell v hodges 2015 based on the 14th amendment This was in spite of attempts of equal rights attempts being futile - such as the equal rights amendment 1972 failing to be ratified by states Furthermore, carpenter v US 2018 ruled that under the 4th amendment, the government needed a warrant to access phone location history

However The Supreme Court does not unilaterally hold the ability to enforce its decisions For example, Brown v Board of education 1954 relied on Eisenhower’s exec. Order in 1957 to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas for desegregation to be enforced Further Engel v Vitale 1962 banned prayers in schools, but is still widely practised in many public schools, such as Groton School Therefore, whilst some may argue that the supreme court does not hold enforcement powers, they are still widely supported by the other branches, and thus their decisions are enacted. In turn, the supreme court has been seen as quasi-legislative, producing new policy which had a wide impact.

Evaluate the view that the current US Supreme Court is ideologically conservative'

Nominations One might first argue that the US supreme court is ideologically conservative due to the nominations The Supreme Court has been set at 9 since 1869, and a third of these were nominated by republican President Donald Trump A common consideration of Donald Trump on the nomination of his justices in their ideological outlook - all 3 of which were conservative Thus, a third of the justices appointed in Trump 1 term presidency were conservative, increasing the ideological outlook to be conservative

However Not all presidents in recent times have been Republican, and have thus been able to appoint liberal justices For example, in recent times, Biden appointed the first African-American female justice, Justice Jackson, who is more liberal Furthermore, Obama appointed 2 justices, as well as CLinton - both democratic presidents Despite the nominations of justices under Democratic presidents, such as Biden appointing Justice Jackson, this has not changed the composition of the Supreme Court. This is because Justice Jackson replaced Justice Breyer - a fellow liberal Justice. Thus, the composition of the current supreme court remains primarily Conservative.

Decisions One might next suggest that the current supreme court is Conservative based on the decisions it makes Conservative justices believe in a ‘dead constitution’ (Justice Scalia), therefore acting as a strict constitutionalist, sticking to the original meaning of the constitution In contrast, liberal justices recognise the changing nature of society, and thus believe in a living constitution, adapting the meaning to modern society The recent decisions of the supreme court tend to favour this conservative outlook, and republican presidents For example, the court was seen agreeing with Trump in Trump v Hawaii 2018, thus allowing implementation of strict immigration reform programmes Furthermore, despite the vagueness of the constitution, they have upheld death penalty in Bucklew v Precythe 2019, stating the ‘cruel and unusual punishment does not guarantee a painless death Most recently, we saw the abolition of roe v Wade 1973, which upheld the right to abortion, and allowed 16+ states to ban abortion to varying extents

However Does not always favour this outlook For example, did not favour republican president in 2020, when 3 cases reached the supreme court as Trump claimed there was electoral fraud Furthermore, ACA 2010 was upheld in Sebelius 2012, despite claims of it affecting the ‘interstate commerce clause’ Thus, although one might suggest that the court does not consistently follow a conservative outlook on court decisions, it is clear that a majority of cases do. Furthermore, despite ACA being upheld, provisions such as the individual mandate of medicare were struck down, due to the ability to ‘coerce states’ into implementing ACA 2010. Thus we still see federalism upheld and most cases decided with a conservative outlook.

Swing Justice Furthermore, one might suggest that the presence of a swing justice - Chief Justice Roberts - suggests that the ideology of the court is not entirely conservative However, this can be quite limited as most cases have unanimous or an overwhelming majority (51% of cases) Thus, the swing justice has become increasingly unimportant For example cakeshop v colorado 2018 saw judges agree with the refusal to bake a same-sex couple a cake with a 7-2 decision Furthermore, in US v Texas 2016, we saw DACA 2012 struck down despite Chief Roberts giving harsh criticism

However This does not render the swing justice entirely unimportant Prior to 2012, important in upholding ACA 2010 Following Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, became more important in assisting with a variety of liberal decisions such as Medical services v Russo, striking down restrictive abortion law in Louisiana Although one might argue that the presence of a Swing Justice is an important indicator of the lack of a conservative bias, the influence of this is extremely limited. The conservatives still have a majority without Roberts, and an overwhelming number of cases are decided with a large majority, reinforcing the lack of importance of a swing justice as the vote can’t be swung.

Living constitution

Para 1: Living = better due to societal evolution, allows unforeseen issues to be addressed as framers unable to predict all social changes. Allows the constitution to adapt to current societal values and norms ensuring that it stays relevant and applicable to current social conditions Obergefell Vs Hodges 2015 SC adopted living approach to guarantee 14th amendment right to same-sex couples

Para 2: However, can be argued originalist as it prevents judicial overreach. Helps maintain the separation of powers as the constitution was designed in a way to establish checks and balances. Originalist may be better as living approach may encroach on the powers of the legislature as it reduces the need for amendments and by using this approach it limits bias of judges interpretation DC V Heller 2008 where SC adopted a living approach to protect the right to bear arms

Para 3: Living = better as it allows for the constitution to be flexible. Allows for the expansion of rights as allows for a more modern interpretation of rights as the framers created the constitution when slavery was still legal. Suggests that it is better as it allows for more inclusivity and equality as constitutional rights expanded, therefore, leading to more justice and fairness as it allows consitution to be aligned with constitutional values SC 8TH JUNE 2023 upheld race-conscious voting protections by ruling against the state of Alabama's racial gerrymandering in a 5-4 vote

Para 4: Originalist = better, respects constitution This is because it preserves the constitution as a fixed social contract allowing it to remain consistent regarding rulings. This may help promote predictability and stability as this approach relies on fixed interpretation, meaning that ruling on rights enshrined in the constitution are able to protected more effectively. Citizens United Vs FEC ruled that spending of corporations on campaign was a first amendment rights

Para 5 Living = better as it promotes the principle that interpretation reflects the will of the people. Suggests that it improves democracy in the US as it ensures that the constitution servers as a democratic instrument reflecting current social norms to allow for the constitution to address the changing political landscape which was made evident in... Shelby V Holder 2015 where the SC struck down a key provision of the 1965 VRA as it required states to obtain federal approval for voting laws as it recognised the changing political dynamis since the VRA was enacted

Para 6 = Originalist better as it upholds the rule of law as it preserves constitutional supremacy. Originalists argue this is the best approach as they believe the constitution should not be altered by shifting norms to help avoid arbitray decision making as decisions are based on values enshrined in the constitution US v Jones 2012 where the SC examined constitutionality of warrantless GPS tracking. Ruled it as unconstitutional through an originalist approach as it violated the 4th amendment in the face of new technology

Campaign finance

Finance One might first argue that finance is the main determinant in the outcome of elections Finance is used for a variety of things - organisation, campaigning, and the media In turn, it becomes extremely important in determining the success of congressional elections, especially due to the ability to pork-barrel For example the big-dig highway in Boston 2018, and in 2022, Nevada senators spent 500,000 on horse management Furthermore, this allows more effective campaigning and tv ads For example, 2020 senate, Arizona republican senator outspent by 30M, thus losing

A larger war chest is just one factor, which can be impacted by other factors such as incumbency Furthermore, not all pork-barrelling is viewed as beneficial, Obama declared it wasteful and attempted to limit it, declaring that it should be limited For example, the big dig highway took many years, and was wasteful, going way over original spending targets by billions, and leading to lots of loss, death, and delays Whilst some may argue that finance is the main determinant, it is often dependent on other factors - such as incumbency which directly correlate with the amount of funding available. Furthermore, a large war chest is merely one factor, and others can be highly influential.

Incumbency One might next argue that the another determinant in the success of congressional elections In the 2022 election, the incumbency rate was 94% Incumbents received a variety of advantages, including an increased of funding - for example in 2018 - reps had 8x, senators had 7x In addition to pork-barrelling, they become known within their communities, and often make their way up to committees Therefore, they are more likely to be voted back in due to the benefits they bring to the ‘folks back home’

Not always effective, incumbency does not guarantee success Many of these projects have been overly expensive, and of little value to the actual community This includes the ‘Big Dig’ Boston highway, costing almost 15 billion which oversaw deaths, delays, and many flaws Furthermore, this is more a method of a quick vote which occurs at the end, close to an election, such as the Nevada funding in 2022, coinciding with the upcoming midterms Prior to this, little is seen in terms of representation, especially with the already high reelection rates, requiring little to no effort, instead prioritising parties, 2013 - 70% votes split along party lines Although some may argue that incumbency is not an important factor, this is largely limited. Incumbents are almost certain to be re-elected and carry a variety of advantages - including high funding, and evidence of their effectiveness in representation through their pork barrelling and legislation votes.

Coat-tailing One might next argue that the coattail effect has been important in determining the outcome of congressional elections This depends on the popularity of presidents, which often far higher than that of congress, it is often that congress receives around 20% of the vote, whilst the presidents has a low of in the high 30s% Ronald Reagan received a high of 74%, and helped 33 house seats, 12 senate seats, with fewer than 9 incumbent democrats defeated Trump faced similar success in coat-tailing, with many republican senators gaining re-elect despite being close to almost certain defeat, such as Pat Toomey in the 2016 elections Trump faced extreme popularity, with Republican congressmen not even being able to speak against claims of electoral fraud in the 2020 election

Not always effective Popularity of presidents have dropped, in recent times, they have faced highs in the 50%, whilst previously presidents received approval ratings of 70% and higher Thus, there is little success in recent times on the presidents, for example, Clinton, Bush, and Obama showed little evidence of the ability to use coat tails And even Trump’s coattailing saw 21 with a higher vote share than him in 2016 Thus, some may argue that coat-tailing is an important factor, especially with rising polarisation and the higher popularity of presidents to congress, but this is limited. Recent presidents have struggled to do this, and congressmen often have higher shares of the vote than presidents.

Evaluate the view that EXOP is the most important part of the executive

White house One might first argue that the EXOP is the most important part of the executive due to the white house This has around a dozen of so offices, all of which help the president daily Most importantly is white house chief of staff which has been described as a ‘deputy president’, making them the most important choice president makes to some For example, during 9/11 it was Bush’s CHief of staff Andrew Card that told him ‘America is under attack’, eventually lead to his united congress, high approval rating, and 6 trillion dollar war on terror These have also been highly experienced, for example, under Biden this was Al Gore, who was also received the majority vote in his run for president in 2000

These are not statically important For example, Trump had 86% turnover, due to his passion for loyalty, including firing his chief of staff and announcing his replacement on twitter in 2017 Carter himself did not appointed one for the first 2 years Furthermore, unlike the cabinet where there are policy specialists such as Merrick Garland (prior Justice nominee), who joined the department of justice Although one might argue that the EXOP is unimportant due to the white house office, this has been emblematic of American culture - the place where the chief of staff resides which has been a notable figure often described as a ‘deputy president’, informing the president of key events and even taking the falls for mishaps. Furthermore, this remains the main place of operations, and the official residence of the president.

OMB One might next argue the OMB is also extremely important They advise the president on how to allocate funds, oversee spending, and clear house for initiatives from executive For example, Obama set up a budget with 5.5 billion in pork-barrelling earmarks in 2009, which due to the reciprocity of congress helped him gain extra support in voting, this also allocated 410B in funding to various policies of is Furthermore, the budget can also be rearranged when the allocations are not approved by congress, money can be rearranged internally - for example Trump moved 10 billion from defence department to support the building of his mandated wall

Congress has ultimate authority over the budget, rejection of which can be costly and shutdown the whole government For example, Trump’s government was shut down for 35 days from 2018-2019 Furthermore, this has directly impacted policies, such as Trump’s wall, despite the reallocation of funds, 458 miles were built - much of which pre-existed Although one may argue that the OMB renders the EXOP useless due to congress’ ability to block budgets - increasingly used due to partisanship - this is still an important place where the president is able to gain help with allocating and ensuring the budget is effective.

NSC The national security council has also been extremely important - acting as an in house think-tank This has been extremely important - such as in Bush’s war on terror, where he had great use of this adopting the 2001 patriot act and the creation of guantanamo bay This was accommodated by the expansion of the national security council with the creation of both a NSA in the 1900s, and homeland security in 2001 Furthermore, the NSC has had significant figures such as Henry Kissinger under President Nixon, who approved the illegal bombings of the Cambodia in 1969

Has become increasingly problematic Kissinger + Nixon’s bombing resulted in the war powers act 1973 being implemented Clinton + Obama heavily criticised between 2012-16, for Benghazi bombings when Clinton was his sec. Of state NSA was revealed by Edward Snowden to be overly intrusive, for example using information on american citizens from large companies such as google and AT&T in 2013 Although one may argue that the NSC is unimportant due to the controversy it has faced and the various scandals surrounding it, foreign policy is a key part of the president’s powers as commander-in-chief, and the NSC has been irreplaceable in supporting the president in doing this efficiently.

Rights similar in US and UK

Similarites --> both have enshrined rights UK has HRA 1998 and US has the Bill of Rights

• Both have loopholes to get around the protection of rights, Bush passed foreign intelligence surveillance act 2002. Brown overruling SC in 2010.

• Both struggle with minority rights. trump's Muslim travel ban on Arabian countries in 2018 and the Windrush Scandal with the home secretary at the time being Amber Rudd who resigned then Sajid Javid became her successor.

• Both struggle with minority representation: Senate only has 4% African American members and 10% in the HoC -> UK better in LGB thingy

Differences -> 1. UK adapted via Acts of Parliament, US via interpretative amendments by the Supreme Court

Example: UK - Marriage Act 2013 legalising same-sex marriage, while in the US - Obergefell v Hodges 2015 secured same-sex marriage rights

2. Different extents to which pressure / interest groups can uphold rights Example: UK - Identity Cards Act 2006: Liberty asked ministers to vote against, meanwhile interest groups can arise in congressional committees and politically prevent infringements upon rights occuring Ex - NRA holding against gun control maybe?

3. HoL less power than Senate due to unelected nature Example: UK - Sexual Offences Amendment Act (2000) - reducing age for gay sex from 18-16, passed in HoC, rejected in HoL but Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 called to override their disapproval, comparatively in the US - Civil Rights Act 1965 aimed to ensure greater voting rights for everyone

Parties have declined in significance

Candidate selection Parties have LOST control over candidate selection Evidence from the 2016 Primary election process both parties struggled to control the selection The democrats had the rise of support for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, and Republicans lost control with the political outsider, Trump. Trump was a political outsider with no prior elected experience, emerged as the party's nominee despite facing resistance from many party leaders and establishment figures. Trump's appeal to the party's base and his ability to generate widespread support through his own campaign strategies bypassed traditional party channels.

Theories of party decline can be said to be exaggerated in the media. Congress is still a two-party system The death of the Republican party was reported following Nixon and the Watergate scandal but then had a candidate back in the White House after six years (they won the election) The death of the DEMOCRATIC party was reported following the shift left during the 70s and 80s, but the party was resurrected by the 'new democrats'

Communication with voters Parties lost traditional function as the communicator between politicians and the voters Politicians who wished to communicate with voters through organised rallies in the past, however now, politicians speak in TV and social media, while voters 'speak back' through opinion polls. This means they have lost this communication which was once prominent, so they are in decline The rise of social media and other forms of digital communication has made it more difficult for parties to maintain control over their messaging.

Elected Presidents have been either democrat or republican. While there have been instances of third-party candidates running for the position, none of them have won it. Turnout for presidential elections is increasing too, so the parties are seen as legitimate in the eyes of many. 2020 presidential election had 67% turnout compared to 51% in 1996!!!

Emergence of movements The emergence of occupy and BLM movements in the 21st century show the extent to which ordinary Americans are willing to join a movement rather than a traditional political party. This shows that Americans seek to influence the parties more from without than from within. The Tea party managed to get their candidate selected for various congressional seats over the traditional Republican party which indicates the strength

Increased partisanship in congress If Parties were declining in importance, a decline in partisanship could be anticipated. BUT partisanship has increased in Congress. In 2009, the Obama stimulus package failed to gain a single vote from the Republican party. the federal government shutdown of 2013 highlights this. This was caused by Republican opposition to Obamacare despite Obama winning two elections on the issue and the supreme court upholding it