Politics Flashcards
Electoral College - Chat GPT
The Electoral College is the system used to formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Here’s a breakdown of how it works, including the role of electors and slates of electors:
- How Electoral Votes Are Allocated• Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress (House + Senate seats). For example, California has a larger population, so it has more electoral votes than smaller states like Vermont.
• There are 538 total electoral votes, and a candidate needs a majority (270) to win.
Each state’s number of electors is equal to its total number of representatives in Congress. This includes two electors for the state’s U.S. Senate seats (since every state has two senators) plus additional electors equal to its number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which is based on the state’s population.
For example:
• California has 2 senators and 52 House members (based on its large population), so it has 54 electoral votes. • Wyoming has 2 senators and just 1 House member (due to its smaller population), giving it 3 electoral votes.
In addition, the District of Columbia, though not a state, has 3 electoral votes due to the 23rd Amendment. This formula is what gives the total of 538 electors (435 House members + 100 senators + 3 for D.C.).
- Selecting Electors• Each state has a group of people called electors who are chosen by political parties within the state. This group is known as a slate of electors.
• Before the general election, each political party in a state submits a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for that party’s candidate if they win the state’s popular vote.
Electors are typically chosen by political parties within each state, and they are not federal officials but rather party loyalists or active supporters of the party’s candidate. Here’s a closer look at the process:
1. Selection by Political Parties: Before the general election, each political party in a state nominates a slate of electors pledged to their candidate. These electors are often chosen by the party’s leadership or are individuals who have shown strong support for the party—such as state and local party leaders, activists, or other notable supporters. 2. Becoming Electors: The process varies by state. Some states let parties directly appoint electors, while in others, electors may be nominated at state party conventions or chosen by the party’s central committee. 3. Role After the Election: When voters cast their ballots in the general election, they are technically voting for the electors pledged to their preferred candidate. In states with a “winner-takes-all” system, the slate of electors for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state is appointed to the Electoral College. 4. Electors as “Faithful” Representatives: Electors are expected to vote according to the results of the state’s popular vote, although they are technically free to cast their vote as they choose in some states. Many states, however, have laws or pledges in place to ensure electors vote in line with the state’s election results, and “faithless electors” (those who vote against the popular vote) are rare.
In summary, electors are typically party loyalists chosen by political parties within each state, and their role is to formally cast the electoral votes for President and Vice President in accordance with the popular vote in their state.
- The General Election (Popular Vote)• On Election Day, U.S. voters cast their ballots for President and Vice President. However, they’re technically voting for a slate of electors pledged to their preferred candidate.
• In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state receives all that state’s electoral votes (winner-takes-all). Maine and Nebraska, however, split their electoral votes based on congressional district outcomes and a statewide vote. - Electors Voting (Electoral Vote)• Once the popular vote is decided, the winning slate of electors for each state meets in mid-December in their state capitals to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
• These votes are then sent to Congress to be counted. - Counting Electoral Votes and Finalizing the Outcome• In early January, Congress meets in a joint session to officially count the electoral votes.
• If a candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, they’re declared the President-elect.
• If no candidate reaches 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation has one vote to choose the President from among the top three candidates.
Key Points about Electors and the Electoral College System
• Faithless Electors: Electors are expected to vote for their party’s candidate, but occasionally, an elector may cast a vote for someone else. Some states have laws requiring electors to stick to their pledge. • Role of Slates of Electors: The slate system is a way for states to designate electors who are loyal to a candidate. Whichever party’s candidate wins the state, their slate of electors is chosen to cast the formal votes.
The Electoral College was designed as a compromise between a popular vote and a congressional selection of the President, and it’s aimed at balancing the influence of small and large states.
Is Replacing Biden an Attack on Democracy? - LA Times; July 2024
Key Points of the Article:
1. Criticism of Primary Elections: • The Democratic Party’s reliance on primaries to select candidates is questioned, with an argument for considering alternatives. • Historically, brokered conventions, not primaries, were the norm until 1972. 2. Flaws in Common Defenses of Primaries: • Lazy Defense: Claiming primaries are traditional ignores the pre-1972 system of party conventions. • Idealistic Defense: Suggesting primaries are necessary for democracy is misleading, as most democracies don’t use them. • Practical Defense: While primaries originated in the Progressive Era to combat party corruption, they were never meant to be the sole method for candidate selection. 3. Comparison with Other Institutions: • Major institutions (e.g., media, military, and religious organizations) are not internally democratic. This suggests political parties could function similarly by emphasizing leadership over populism. 4. Polarization and Extremism: • Primaries allow extreme and uncompromising voters to dominate, leading to candidates who are less representative and more beholden to fringe views. 5. Kamala Harris and Democratic Leadership Concerns: • Doubts about Harris’s electability stem from her lack of recent competitive election wins and her performance in the 2020 primary. • Despite polling showing Biden and Harris are unpopular, the current system restricts party leaders from choosing alternative candidates. 6. Winning Should Be the Priority: • The Democratic Party’s main responsibility is to nominate a candidate who can win the general election, especially against Donald Trump, rather than adhering strictly to primary results. • Ignoring Biden’s primary victories might better reflect voters’ broader concerns and increase the party’s chances of success. 7. Democracy vs. Pragmatism: • While democracy is valued, prioritizing a general election win — especially when democracy itself is perceived to be at risk — should take precedence.
Democrat Primary 2024 - Chat GPT
There were Democratic primaries in 2024, but they were largely symbolic since President Joe Biden was the incumbent seeking reelection. Incumbent presidents typically face little to no serious opposition within their party during primaries. However, there were a few challengers:
1. Marianne Williamson - An author and activist who ran on a progressive platform. 2. Dean Phillips - A congressman from Minnesota who entered the race late in 2023, framing himself as a moderate alternative to Biden.
Despite these challengers, President Biden remained the overwhelming favorite, with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and most party leaders backing him. Many states made adjustments to their primary schedules, especially since the DNC prioritized South Carolina as the first primary state, a move seen as aligning with Biden’s strong support among Black voters in the South.
Ultimately, Biden’s incumbency and support from the Democratic establishment made his renomination almost certain.
Many states allowed voters to participate in choosing a Democratic candidate. While President Joe Biden was the incumbent and heavily favored, some states still conducted primaries or caucuses where voters could cast ballots for challengers like Marianne Williamson or Dean Phillips.
However, not all states held competitive primaries. Some states may have canceled their Democratic primaries or shifted their formats due to Biden’s strong incumbent advantage and lack of significant opposition. This is a common practice when a sitting president seeks reelection and the party wants to consolidate resources.
If a state held a Democratic primary and Williamson was on the ballot, voters in that state could vote for her if they wished. Whether her name appeared on the ballot depended on state-specific filing requirements and whether her campaign filed to compete in those states.
Where’s the line between good government and too much government? - CNN, 2021
There is something strange and circular in our ongoing fight over what freedoms Americans should enjoy.
We are precisely 20 years out from the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, after which Americans gave up a lot of individual liberties in the name of safety. Air travel, especially, was changed forever and the government began moving toward a much more expansive use of surveillance.
Now we’re in a place where people are completely fine taking off their shoes and belts in public before they can board domestic flights because of a foiled long-ago plot, but have resisted wearing masks – let alone offering up their Covid vaccine status – in-flight amid a deadly global pandemic.
And Republicans are accusing President Joe Biden of authoritarianism, rejecting his effort to compel companies to make employees submit to either vaccinations or regular testing. The effort, which has been announced but not yet detailed, will come through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which means it’s a matter of workplace safety.
Republican governors have promised to sue the Biden administration to stop the effort.
It’s a flip of the script from the Trump years. We’re still reeling from four years in which Americans saw a President consider using the military in his own country and actively and openly tried to stop the democratic process, which would have robbed every American of some kind of freedom.
There is ample evidence then-President Donald Trump was reading from an authoritarian playbook in his effort to upend the election.
The Republican congresswoman, Elise Stefanik of New York, who tried to help Trump object to the election he lost, argued Biden’s public safety efforts were “unconstitutional, unlawful, and an authoritarian power grab that has become a hallmark of his failed Presidency.”
The feds have accusations too. Further complicating questions of freedom is Biden’s accusation that states rejecting local mask and vaccination rules are incorrectly imposing their will and endangering people in the process.
Vigilante abortion lawsuits in Texas are a twist on rights. Separately, his Department of Justice is suing Texas over its restrictive new law that all but outlaws abortions in the state by giving private citizens a sort of vigilante license to sue anyone who facilitates an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
Wartime measures. Biden’s vaccine requirement effort is extraordinary in terms of government intervention, compelling companies to touch many millions of workers. But this is a war against Covid-19, which has killed so many hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Questions of rights. When a government can require people to stay home, when it can require them to wear a mask indoors, have become so political even though they are central to the effort against Covid-19, which has no politics.
The details are still coming, but it will be challenged in court.
A vaccine is different than putting a person in prison. There’s a difference between Biden’s decision to use the government to get people stuck with an FDA-approved vaccine and other extraordinary suspensions of rights.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt rounded up and detained Japanese Americans during World War II.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War.
President Andrew Jackson forced Native Americans from their homes and marched many to their deaths.
All of these were ultimately rejected by courts, but not in time to reinstate rights, restore property or give back lands.
The question now is whether a shot in the arm will be viewed as a national imperative or government overreach.
The Supreme Court has said the public interest in combating disease outweighs an individuals opposition to a vaccine. But it did that more than 100 years ago, in 1905, regarding smallpox, a disease the World Health Organization declared eradicated in 1979.
Here’s a nugget bringing it all together. In 2002, when the country was still extremely concerned about terror attacks, President George W. Bush ordered 500,000 members of the military to get the smallpox vaccine in the off chance of a biological warfare terrorist attack.
Today, American schoolkids get a wide range of vaccines, all approved by the FDA. A number of states – 15 according to the National Conference of State Legislatures – allow opt-outs for nothing more than personal belief and skepticism. Those have led to a resurgence of certain vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles.
A new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released ahead of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 finds Americans still feel the affects of the attacks.
57% say the attacks have impacted the way they live their life today
68% say the attacks had an impact on Americans’ individual rights and freedoms.
Here are some interesting points from CNN’s report on the poll:
Older adults, who were 45 or older in 2001, are least likely to say the attacks had “a great deal” of impact on how they live their lives now (13% say so).
Among those who were children, teenagers or not even born yet at the time of the attacks, 24% say 9/11 had a great deal of impact on their lives.
Republicans (72%) are a bit more likely than Democrats (64%) to say that rights and freedoms were affected by the attacks.
Twenty years from now, when Covid, hopefully, is something we’ve defeated, I wonder if people will be talking about how the pandemic changed their lives and if the idea of Covid-19 vaccines will be at all controversial.
Is it illegal to show voter ID in California and New York? - Chat GPT
It is not illegal to show your ID when voting in California or New York elections. However, neither state requires voters to present identification at the polls in most situations. First-time voters who did not provide identification during registration may be asked to show ID when voting for the first time.
California:
• Generally, voters are not required to present ID at the polling place. However, if you’re voting for the first time after registering by mail and did not provide your driver’s license number, California ID number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number on your registration form, you may be asked to show a form of identification at the polls.
New York:
• Similarly, most voters do not need to show ID at the polls. First-time voters who did not provide identification with their voter registration application may be asked to present ID when voting for the first time. Acceptable forms include a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or another government document that shows your name and address.
In summary, while it’s not illegal to show your ID when voting in California or New York, it’s typically unnecessary unless you’re a first-time voter who didn’t provide the required identification during registration.
The primary argument against requiring voter ID laws is that they can create barriers to voting, particularly for marginalized groups. Opponents argue that these laws disproportionately affect minorities, low-income individuals, the elderly, and people with disabilities who may have difficulty obtaining government-issued identification. Here are the main points behind this argument:
1. Voter Suppression – Studies suggest that strict voter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise certain groups, especially African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and low-income voters who may lack the necessary ID due to financial or logistical difficulties.
2. Lack of Evidence of Voter Fraud – Opponents argue that in-person voter fraud (which ID laws aim to prevent) is extremely rare. Numerous studies and investigations have found little evidence that people impersonate others at the polls on a scale that would impact elections.
3. Cost and Burden of Obtaining an ID – Even if IDs are technically free in some states, obtaining them often requires underlying documents (such as birth certificates) that can be expensive or difficult to obtain, especially for older citizens, rural residents, or those without easy access to government offices.
4. Disproportionate Impact on Certain Communities – Many Native Americans, for example, may not have traditional street addresses, making it harder to get an ID that meets voting requirements. Similarly, some elderly voters who were born at home may not have official birth certificates.
5. Chilling Effect on Voter Turnout – Critics argue that requiring an ID could discourage eligible voters from even attempting to vote, fearing they may be turned away at the polls if they lack the correct documentation.
6. Alternative Security Measures Exist – Many states use other ways to verify voter identity, such as signature matching, voter roll checks, and affidavits, without requiring strict ID laws.
7. Historical Context of Discriminatory Voting Laws – Some opponents link voter ID laws to past discriminatory practices, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, which were used to suppress minority voting rights before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Supporters of voter ID laws argue they are necessary to prevent fraud and maintain election integrity, but opponents believe the risks of disenfranchisement outweigh the benefits, especially given the lack of widespread voter fraud.
In states that do not require voter ID, election officials use other security measures to prevent voter impersonation and fraud. Here’s how they ensure the integrity of elections without requiring ID:
- Voter Registration and Identity Verification
• When registering to vote, individuals typically must provide identifying information, such as their Social Security number, driver’s license number, or other government records.
• Election offices cross-check this information against databases (e.g., DMV records, Social Security records) to verify identity before adding a person to the voter rolls. - Signature Matching
• When voters sign in at polling places, their signature is compared to the one on file from their voter registration.
• If the signatures do not match, election officials may challenge the voter or require additional verification. - Voter Rolls and Check-In System
• Each polling location has an official voter roll listing all eligible voters.
• When a person checks in to vote, election officials mark them as having voted. If someone else tries to vote under the same name, the system would flag it.
• Many states now use electronic poll books that update in real-time, preventing someone from voting at multiple locations. - Penalties for Voter Fraud
• Voter impersonation is a felony in all states, with severe penalties, including hefty fines and prison time.
• Because of these risks, voter fraud is extremely rare—there’s little incentive for an individual to attempt it. - Poll Worker Scrutiny
• Poll workers are trained to identify irregular behavior and can challenge suspicious voters.
• If someone seems unsure of their identity, hesitant, or matches a flagged name, election workers can investigate further. - Provisional Ballots for Disputed Cases
• If someone’s eligibility is questioned, they are often allowed to cast a provisional ballot.
• These ballots are only counted if election officials verify the voter’s identity after Election Day. - Data Cross-Checks Across States
• States participate in programs like ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center), which helps remove duplicate registrations and flag suspicious activity across state lines.
Why Impersonation Fraud is Uncommon
The risks far outweigh the benefits. A single fraudulent vote is highly unlikely to change an election, yet the person attempting it faces severe legal consequences if caught. Studies have found that documented cases of in-person voter impersonation are extremely rare, suggesting that the security measures in place are effective.
Would voter ID laws make it even harder? Yes, but opponents argue that the trade-off—potentially disenfranchising large numbers of eligible voters—outweighs the tiny risk of impersonation fraud.
Estimates indicate that millions of eligible American voters lack the government-issued photo identification required in some states to cast a ballot. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that approximately 11% of eligible voters do not possess the necessary ID, with higher percentages among seniors, minorities, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. 
A 2023 analysis by the University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement and VoteRiders found that nearly 29 million voting-age U.S. citizens did not have a non-expired driver’s license, and over 7 million lacked any form of unexpired government-issued photo ID. 
These figures highlight the potential impact of strict voter ID laws on disenfranchising significant portions of the electorate, particularly among marginalized groups.
Presidential primaries and caucuses - USA.gov
Key Points on Presidential Primaries and Caucuses
Presidential Primaries
• Most states hold primaries 6–9 months before a presidential election.
• Voters cast secret ballots to choose their preferred candidate.
• Delegates are awarded based on primary results.
Caucuses
• Held in several states before a presidential election.
• Run by political parties at the county, district, or precinct level.
• Some use secret ballots, while others require voters to group according to candidate preference.
• Delegates are awarded based on caucus votes received.
Types of Primaries and Caucuses
1. Open: Any voter can participate, regardless of party affiliation.
2. Closed: Only registered party members can vote.
3. Semi-Open & Semi-Closed: Hybrid versions allowing limited participation from unaffiliated voters.
Awarding Delegates
• Each state has different rules set by political parties at national and state levels.
• Delegates are usually party leaders, active members, or early candidate supporters.
• Delegates represent their state at national party conventions.
Key Terms Defined
• Primary: A state-run election where voters anonymously select a candidate through a secret ballot.
• Caucus: A party-run meeting where participants publicly express support for candidates, sometimes by physically grouping together.
• Delegate: A party representative who votes for a candidate at the national convention based on primary or caucus results.
• National Convention: A gathering where delegates officially nominate their party’s presidential candidate.
Examples:
Barack Obama – 2008 Democratic Primaries:
• Announcement and Early Campaign:
• Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination on February 10, 2007.
• Primary and Caucus Performance:
• The primary season began with the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008, where Obama secured a significant victory, boosting his national profile.
• Throughout the primary season, Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton were the leading contenders, with neither securing enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination outright.
• Delegate Count and Nomination:
• By the end of the primary season, Obama had secured 1,766.5 pledged delegates and received the support of 463 superdelegates, surpassing the required 2,118 delegates for the nomination.
• On June 7, 2008, Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama, making him the presumptive nominee.
• National Convention:
• Obama was officially nominated at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 and went on to win the general election against Republican nominee John McCain.
Kamala Harris – 2024 Democratic Primaries:
• Announcement and Early Campaign:
• On July 21, 2024, President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for reelection and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. 
• Primary and Caucus Performance:
• Following Biden’s withdrawal, Harris quickly secured endorsements from key Democratic figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
• The Democratic National Committee announced that Harris had obtained sufficient delegate support to become the presumptive nominee.
• Delegate Count and Nomination:
• Harris was officially nominated at the Democratic National Convention held from August 1 to 5, 2024. 
• National Convention:
• Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. 
• Despite a vigorous campaign, Harris lost the general election to former President Donald Trump.
These examples illustrate the varied paths candidates can experience in the primary and caucus system, from Obama’s extended delegate battle leading to his nomination to Harris’s swift consolidation of support following President Biden’s withdrawal.
Why Courts Matter - Michael Jawando & Sean Wright; Center for American Progress; 2015
Michele Jawando is the Vice President of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Sean Wright is the Policy Analyst for Legal Progress at the Center.
Introduction & Role of Federal Courts
• Federal courts play a crucial role in American life, influencing issues such as marriage equality, voting rights, and gun control.
• There are over 900 federal judges with lifetime appointments who decide more cases than the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Delays in filling judicial vacancies lead to backlogged cases and limited access to justice.
• Judicial appointments are political, with the president nominating judges and the Senate confirming them, often influenced by party control.
Political Influence on Judicial Appointments
• Senate Republicans obstructed President Obama’s judicial nominees to limit his influence on the courts.
• Judicial appointments shape policies such as reproductive rights and gun control.
• Obama worked to appoint a diverse set of judges, improving representation and legal perspectives.
Gun Violence & Federal Courts
• Gun control is a divisive issue, with research showing that weaker state gun laws lead to higher gun violence.
• The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) case redefined the Second Amendment, affirming an individual’s right to own firearms.
• Since Heller, over 700 Second Amendment cases have been decided, with Republican-appointed judges often striking down gun regulations.
• Courts remain divided on concealed-carry laws; Democratic-appointed judges have upheld regulations, while Republican-appointed judges have overturned them.
Money in Politics
• U.S. elections are heavily influenced by wealthy donors, reducing ordinary citizens’ political influence.
• The Supreme Court has shaped campaign finance laws through major rulings:
• Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Established that political spending is protected free speech.
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on elections.
• McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): Struck down aggregate limits on campaign donations.
• These rulings have led to the rise of super PACs, allowing vast sums of money to flood elections.
Voting Rights
• Historically, discriminatory practices restricted voting access, leading to the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.
• In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court weakened the VRA by striking down key provisions.
• This decision enabled states to enact restrictive voting laws, disproportionately affecting minorities and young voters.
• Federal courts continue to play a role in determining the legality of state voting laws.
Conclusion
• Federal courts impact democracy, civil rights, and public policy.
• Judges’ decisions are often aligned with the legal philosophy of the president who appointed them.
• Citizens influence the judiciary by electing presidents and senators who appoint and confirm judges.
• The judiciary should prioritize justice and fairness over ideological pursuits, ensuring the courts reflect America’s diverse society.
