Do Pressure Groups Promote Democracy?

I have not posted anything on the blog in quite a while now, that is because I, along with the few other contributors to this blog, are all at university now. I am currently tutoring a student in A level politics and have been making more notes here and there so I will start uploading them again seeing as the blog is still receiving heavy traffic and the fact that exams are coming up in a few months time.

DO PRESURE GROUPS PROMOTE DEMOCRACY?

This is a classic 45 mark essay that continuously pops up for 3C, the question itself however can be worded in a number of different ways to confuse students, but the basic ideas remain.

Pluralist Argument	Elitist argument
Supplement for electoral systems. Rousseu said that a country is only “free during the election of members of Parliament” – basically what he meant was that in between election time democracy does not exist or flourish, thus pressure groups are supposed to step in and fill the void. Elections only take place every few years, during which the elected representatives may lose touch with their constituents and fall short of their electoral promises – when this happens pressure groups can step in and force the government to interact with civil society, bring up issues that they may have ignored and get them to engage in it. So, pressure groups ensure that democracy continues to flourish in between election time by encouraging the government to actively engage in issues concerning various groups in civil society. EXAMPLE: Black Lives Matter + Planned Parenthood.	Schattsschneider. This political theorist argues that it is the pressure groups with the most wealth that get to influence government, the smaller less wealthy pressure groups are unable to have influence because the cannot afford things such as hosting mass campaigns, hiring professional lobbyists from K Street. Therefore, power in society is only concentrated in a small minority of elitist wealthy pressure groups. Philip Stern in his book ‘The Best Congress Money Can Buy’ illustrates how wealthy pressure groups effectively buy Congress and sway them. EXAMPLE: For instance,
Allow for transparency. Transparency is crucial to a democracy because it ensures that there is openness of government doings and people are aware that the government is not abusing them. Pressure groups allow for transparency through a number of ways, they have played key roles in recent years in exposing government agencies and congressional representatives, this is important so that constituents for instance are aware of what their representatives are up to and are working in accordance to their electoral pledges. EXAMPLE: League of Conservation Voters for 20 years they have published their list of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ congressional representatives who have poor records on the environment and by this they seek to expose them and hope to get them out of office in the next election. Amnesty International played somewhat of a role in the CIA torture report, helping the Senate Intelligence Committee, which exposed the CIA’s inhumane treatment of terror suspects.	Social immobility/gridlock. The pressure groups may be blocking all bills and slowing down or blocking desirable changes, thereby contributing to social immobilization. This may even lead to the prevention of the government from functioning properly as was seen in the government shutdown of 2013, which was primarily caused by Ted Cruz but supported, by a small amount of pressure group (Heritage Action and Tea Party Patriots). This shows that one or two pressure groups can bring an entire government to a standstill suggesting that power is actually not evenly distributed if one pressure group has the ability to influence a 16-day government shutdown. This was something that was opposed by the Democrats and even a vast majority of Republican pressure groups yet it still managed to happen.
Protect minority interests. In democracy there is a general tyranny of the majority over votes, meaning that the minority is usually ignored. Pressure groups occasionally adopt the view of the minority groups that are ignored, effectively giving them a voice and some influence over politics. Everyone has a voice in politics because of this. EXAMPLE: North Dakota Access Pipeline, threat to minority Native Americans who live there. They have the support of environmental groups, their situation has gained recognition across the country even politicians like Bernie Sanders have turned up at the site to show support.	Iron Triangles. These exist in US politics, they are simply relationships between three different political actors, a pressure group, a congressional committee and a bureaucratic department or agency. In an iron triangle each side works together but as long as its interests are protected, it is through iron triangles that policy is formulated. They’re called ‘iron’ for a reason because they’re impenetrable, other pressure groups with the same exact interests will not be able to get involved in this special relationship, thus leaving less influential pressure groups out of the political scene and out of influence.
Salisbury Argument. States that there has been an explosion in the amount of interest groups since the 50s and that they face each other over competing interests and that there is a constant shift in political power between the interest groups. One interest group is not always the most influential and it changes over time. This is generally seen through the NRA who occasionally have high points in gun control protection but are occasionally lose. This means that everyone gets a fair share of influence and there is general equality on the level of influence held by the groups. EXAMPLE: This is most evidently seen in Planned Parenthood vs National Right to Life. Explains why abortion remains a state issue and why there are still limits on it. Thus limiting advances made by planned parenthood in the field of abortion.	Elitism in the structure of an interest group. Many pressure groups themselves may not be representative of their members. Their officers are not usually elected. Few groups have procedures for consulting their members. As a result the members may not share the views expressed by group officials. This means that within the interest group itself, few unelected people without consultation of the membership make the decisions. This would suggest that the pressure groups are elitist in its very own structure and the way they work.
???	????

Should Affirmative Action be scrapped or nah?

I could only come up with five points but there's a lot to talk about, so it should be enough.

End Affirmative Action	Keep it
The USA is a highly competitive society; this has a positive dimension as it provides incentives for people to strive to achieve their goals and ambitions. By using AA incentives are reduced for the less successful in society to better themselves and they will become heavily dependent on government programmes rather than actually working towards their goals. Serves as a disincentive.	Individuals cannot strive to achieve their goals if they’re at a disadvantage because of their race. Political authorities have got a responsibility to provide sufficient resources in deprived districts populated with minorities so they have the same opportunity as whites to achieve their goals. There is a role for government in helping people to help themselves.
AA is seen as a type of welfare, which allows minorities to claim they have been put at a disadvantage because of past discrimination in order to benefit from AA. These “disadvantages” are also faced by other minorities who have prospered in recent years despite not benefiting from AA, such as Southeast Asian and Indian students who do well and are usually disadvantaged because of poor English communicational skills. This demonstrates that values like obedience, diligence and commitment lead to success even for those who are disadvantaged and AA is just an excuse to be lazy.	However, its wrong to assume that minorities in the US lay claim that they’re disadvantaged just so they can benefit from AA as there have been increasing efforts of black communities helping themselves. They only turn to help from the government when their small community with limited resources can’t overcome obstacles of their own. E.g. communities have created initiatives designed to help young people like Harlem Children’s Zone in NYC which aims to provide guidance for young mothers, relationship counseling and summer activities.
AA exists as a form of compensation for past discrimination, which has made certain racial groups suffer. However, past discrimination cannot be the primary reason for some racial groups suffering, it all depends on lifestyle choices made in communities, such as drug or alcohol abuse. In the No Excuses book, the authors argue people who have equal skills and knowledge will have roughly equal earnings regardless of race regardless of what discrimination they may have experienced in the past.	The left has rejected No Excuses’ claim that people with the same knowledge and skills will earn equally no matter the race. Some employers continue to not consider applicants living in certain districts despite them having appropriate skills and qualifications, because of this, unemployment among black communities can be as high as 50% in New York and Chicago (2 of the wealthiest cities)
Moderates suggest that a significant proportion of the groups that benefit from AA have prospered over the past 40 years, and thus, the policy is no longer required. E.g. the proportion of African-Americans in white collar jobs is now over 70%	However, AA has benefited American society a lot thus far, so it can benefit society even further by creating more levels of diversity. It makes no sense to abandon a project that has been successful when it is incomplete. Also, blacks are still lagging behind the white majority population in many aspects of society.
By giving a preference or an advantage to one group leads inevitably to disadvantage for another group, this is reverse discrimination. You cannot end racial inequality with something that inevitably encourages racial inequality.	Regardless, it remains one of the most effective means so far devised by the government to deliver the promise of equal opportunity. And it has been proven to work as demonstrated by the fact that the number of African-American’s completing high school is now as high as 86%, an increase from 39% in the 1960s

Electoral College 45 marker plan

“The system for nominating a President should be replaced by a national popular vote.” Discuss.

Yes	No
The Electoral College suppresses the popular will. The EC allows a candidate to win the presidency despite winning a minority of votes across the country as a whole. Happened on three occasions, most notably though was in 2000 when Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency in the EC. The other way in which the EC suppresses the popular will is through the existence of ‘faithless’ or ‘rogue’ electors who refuses to vote for their state’s preferred presidential candidate. Typically, electors will vote for a candidate the majority of the state support, but there are cases when this does not happen. For example, in 2000, Barbara Lett Simmons, an elector from Washington D.C abstained from voting for Al Gore to protest about the lack of congressional representation for Washington D.C. Since the EC’s establishment, there have been 80 faithless electors, while they don’t exactly affect the outcome of an election; they collectively mean that the wishes of millions of US voters were not respected.	It’s very rare that the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral College. In the past 125 years, the 2000 election was the only liability, and even that was really close (0.5% of the popular vote difference between Gore and Bush). Other occasions where the popular vote winner lost the EC was in 1884, 1872 and 1836. But they’re not really relevant given the fact US democracy was not developed much back then. The current system delivers an Electoral Win for a candidate who wins the national popular vote substantially as seen from Obama. Obama had done so twice, most recently by 51% to 47%. Although rogue electors are indeed possible, they’re rare they do not effect the outcome of the election and if it does, it can be dealt with by state law.
The Electoral College results in some votes being counted more than others, or they’re worth more. This is due to the structure of the EC as the number of Electors for each state is based on each state’s representation in Congress. Every state regardless of size has 2 senators, so states with relatively small populations are over-represented in the Electoral College. In 2012 for example, the 6 least populated states combined had the same number of EC votes (18) as Ohio. But Ohio’s population in 2012 was 3x the combined population of the 6 smallest states. Meaning that a vote cast in Ohio effectively carried less than one-third of the weight of a vote in one of the six smallest states. This is unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic.	However, the EC ensures decisive results through a two-party system that gives voters a clear choice of two candidates. The president will almost ALWAYS gain over half the votes in the country and be seen as the one with a strong mandate to govern. The EC achieves this by ensuring the winning candidate wins both a plurality of the vote at state level and is able to appeal to voters across the USA. This makes it difficult for third-party candidates to develop high levels of support, which could consequently produce a winner with only 1/3 of the popular vote. A national party vote would make it easy for third-party candidates to pick up votes. They would be unlikely to win but would deny a candidate an absolute majority of the popular vote and thus weaken the president’s mandate to govern.
All of the states aside from Maine and Nebraska award their Electoral College votes on a ‘winner=takes-all’ basis. The majority of these states can be relied on voting for a particular party’s candidate. For example, Alaska will vote Republican and Minnesota Democrat. This means that the outcome of the Presidential election is decided in a small number of ‘swing’ states. In the run-up to the 2012 election, Obama and Romney spent almost $100 together on TV ads in the swing state of Ohio. They spent no money on California despite it’s population being more than 3x the size of Ohio. No money was spent in California because they’ve always voted for Democrat candidates ever since 1988. The EC means candidates can effectively ignore a large majority of states in their campaigns. They don’t visit the states, don’t advertise in them and do not address issues specific to them.	Through the Electoral College it is the STATES that choose the president, not a narrow majority of the overall population. If this is changed then one of the most major constitutional planks which reflect shared sovereignty of the US system will be removed: protecting states’ rights and interests. Someone saying this federal system is undemocratic clearly misunderstands the USA’s federal democracy. Representation within the EC is broadly proportional but it ensures smaller states also get the voice by giving them a minimum of 3 EC votes. A national popular vote system would mean the voices of these small states would be singled out. For example, in 2012 New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada (less populated states) were 3 of the key nine swing states that got a lot of attention.
Those who oppose the Electoral College claim it to be an anachronism. The US constitution was written over 200 years ago, back when US democracy was less developed and there were only 13 states. The founding fathers were reluctant to place too much power into the hands of the people. But the country has changed significantly since then and is seen by the 17th amendment (allowed each state’s senators to be elected directly by its voters). Also, 26 states passed legislation that requires electors to vote in accordance with the wishes of that state’s voters. These 2 changes are but a few which emphasise the importance of people being able to vote directly for their representatives.	The EC requires a president to win votes from a wide variety of states. A president elected this way is more likely to govern with the interests of all American’s in mind, a national popular vote system would allow big urban states to impose a president on the rest of the country. This greatly increases legitimacy for example in negotiating with Congress over legislation. This somewhat happened in 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama had to win not only states such as Michigan and Ohio, but also Nevada and Colorado in order to assemble a winning coalition in the EC.