A-LEVEL GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "A-LEVEL GOVERNMENT & POLITICS"

Felix Lucas
5 years ago
Views:

1 A-LEVEL GOVERNMENT & POLITICS GOV3A The Politics of the USA Report on the Examination 2150 June 2015 Version: 0.1

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2015 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 GOV3A The Politics of the USA General Comments As in previous years, there were excellent students who produced scripts of great breadth and depth of knowledge, who understood the realities of American politics and had impressive essay writing skills demonstrating wide reading and research that has yielded comprehensive evidence and examples. At the bottom end there were many scripts that showed little, if any, progression from AS, demonstrating a lack of preparation for the examination. As in previous examination series, there is evidence of centres often teaching only two topics, limiting synopticity and the choice for students in terms of the range of questions they could answer. Also, as with previous years, there is evidence of either selective or ineffective revision taking place. The stronger students used up-to-date, accurate and convincing evidence and examples in their responses, focused clearly on the question, identifying key discriminators within it and producing structured and coherent responses. However, some students lacked current and up-to-date evidence, such as that pertaining to the 2012 election, when answering voting behaviour questions. Up-to-date information, evidence and examples are to be encouraged. Students should be encouraged to keep up with political events and to be aware of political realities. Voting behaviour is different at each election; pressure group activity changes, the parties change and each election produces a different outcome. Students should be aware of these changes to illustrate their answers. There also remains the problem of many candidates introducing too much, often irrelevant, UK references in their responses. Although it is always possible to demonstrate synopticity by reference to UK politics, it is not helpful to produce largely comparative responses. Centres should remember synopticity can be demonstrated by showing the links between the four parts of the GOV3A module from the A2 papers. The essay questions demanded knowledge and understanding of the wider US political system and the system of government for a level 4 answer. 3 of 10

4 Topic 1 The Electoral Process and Direct Democracy Question 01 The majority of students were able to describe the differences between primary elections and the caucus system to a greater or lesser degree, as well as the kind of states that use either system and why. Excellent students were able to take their evidence from the 2008 or 2012 nomination races, citing Obama s 2008 win in the Iowa caucus and Santorum s 2012 win, giving momentum to their candidacies. Other well-prepared students who had followed the 2012 Republican nomination could cite the success of Ron Paul in winning delegates in the caucuses and the possible significance of caucus results in a very tight race. Weaker students turned their answer into a primaries v. caucus answer, with a focus on primaries rather than caucuses, or focused exclusively on the Iowa caucus, which gained marks but only at the lower levels of response. Excellent context was provided by very well-prepared students who explained the importance of the McGovern Fraser Commission in ending the dominance of caucus selection in smoke-filled rooms and the shift by most states to primary elections after Question 02 Several students who had achieved high marks on Question 01 failed to maintain the same quality in response to this essay question. Many students did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the Electoral College. This was a question open to a variable range of responses depending on the student s overall understanding of what the Electoral College is, how it works and why. Many students did not explain the workings of the Electoral College in an opening paragraph, suggesting that it was not fully understood. These students were subsequently unable to clearly demonstrate either its perceived shortcomings, or why it can be seen to work well in the twenty-first century, despite its anachronistic nature. Weaker students had seemingly learned a list of disadvantages of the Electoral College system and simply repeated these despite not being able to fully explain why it has distortions, why the result in 2000 happened, why third parties are disadvantaged or what rogue electors were and whether they actually mattered. There was often an over-reliance on arguments, such as the overrepresentation of some states, that often lacked clarity. Many arguments on the unfairness of the lack of representation of third-party candidates failed to explain how Perot s 19% of the vote in 1992 could have led to anything other than failure to win the presidency. Very few students referred to the reasons for vote distortions, or indeed how these could also be seen as an advantage of the Electoral College, by producing a president with a mandate and legitimacy. Although one of the reasons for the continuation of the Electoral College is problems associated with the alternatives, and the unlikelihood of agreeing a constitutional amendment to bring about change, several students gave overlong descriptions of these alternatives. For higher marks, the focus should have been more on the question itself. 4 of 10

5 Topic 2 Political Parties Question 03 It was rare to see a really poor response to this question. However, many students sought to explain only the problems faced by third parties rather than addressing the question. The best responses were able to examine and challenge the textbook idea that the US party system is dominated by two parties, the Democrats and Republicans. Excellent responses were able to develop the argument that in reality the US does not have a two-party system but rather a 100 party system, because the two main parties are highly de-centralised and organised under state law. Consequently, they differ in each of the 50 states both ideologically and organisationally. For example, the Democratic Party in California is very different from that in Alabama, and the Republican Party in Texas is very different from the Republican Party in Maine. Some responses relied on out-dated evidence, such as using Joe Lieberman as an example of a current independent in the Senate. Some were unware that there were currently two independent senators. Question 04 There were many excellent answers to this question, with several students gaining very high level 4 marks on all three Assessment Objectives. The best responses recognised the importance of focusing on the current position of the parties and placing emphasis on both ideologically distinct and internally united. The best students displayed contextual understanding of the developments that have led to ideological changes in recent years. However, some students brought out-dated evidence from the 1970s and 1980s, referring to Rockefeller Republicans and Clinton s New Democrats rather than considering how the parties have changed in the twenty-first century or since the election of Obama in Nevertheless, many students referred to the Democratic Party s loss of the south and its conservative wing that had dominated the party until the Civil Rights changes of the 1960s, making the Democratic Party a more cohesively liberal party. They also made reference to the Reagan presidency and the growth of the new right and the religious right making the Republican Party more socially and fiscally conservative since the 1980s. They also showed that they clearly understood what was meant by these terms (in contrast to many who attempted the question). Some also referred to the breakdown of the consensus on foreign policy after the cold war ended. This allowed them to illustrate effectively the ways that both parties had polarised, giving evidence of important and growing ideological differences between them on both economic and social policy in recent years. The best students were able to support their analysis with examples of policy differences, as shown in the debates and votes on the economic stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, the bail-outs and the even more recent ideological battles over the federal deficits and the so-called fiscal cliff. Weaker students tended to focus more on the social issues of abortion or gun control which, although demonstrating differences between the parties, were not particularly central to recent, more important ideological debates. Some excellent students wrote of the hyper-partisanship evident in recent years between the progressive liberals of the Democratic Party and the Tea- Party-backed fiscal and social conservatives now dominating the Republican Party. Some noted the much more partisan votes now found in the US Congress compared to the past, when bipartisanship was more the norm. These excellent students also argued that, although this partisanship made the parties much more ideologically different, there was still evidence of remaining divisions within their big tent internal coalitions. 5 of 10

6 They were able to give evidence and examples of factions such as the more conservative blue dogs and DINOS still remaining in the Democratic Party, the ideological splits between the few remaining compassionate conservative moderates (known as RINOS) and the highly fiscally and socially conservative Tea Party faction in the Republican Party. Students at the lower levels of response were unable to explain or give evidence of any changes to the parties as they became more ideological, coherent and distinct, or of the remaining factions within them. A significant few continued to argue that the parties were like empty bottles with the same label or separated only by the issue of abortion. These students also failed to demonstrate understanding of the US federal system, which still contributes to significant differences between candidates and members of Congress, making some ideological differences and divisions inevitable. Answers were distinguished by the accuracy and relevance of the evidence and the examples presented in the essay. 6 of 10

7 Topic 3 Voting Behaviour Question 05 A few ill-prepared students took this question to refer to the Democratic Party and voters who voted for the party. The marks awarded for this question depended on the extent of the psephological explanation of the term, and the statistical evidence presented. This was by far the least well-answered question on the paper, with a large number of students omitting it altogether whilst still attempting Question 06. This suggests inadequate revision across the whole specification, reducing the number of topics that could be attempted. Many responses were excessively descriptive and could not display the depth required to reach the higher levels. Students at the higher levels of response were able to show a good or sound understanding that democratic overload relates to the very large number of elections in the USA. This is connected to the working of the constitution itself, with presidential elections every four years and mid-terms every two years. However, some students did not recognise that federalism is also a factor, with elections for state legislatures and governors and also at local level. Some students repeated that Americans are sometimes said to vote for everything from the president to the local dog-catcher and this has led to the term democratic overload and the related term voter fatigue. Question 06 This question produced significant variations in responses. The best engaged with all three parts of the question, displaying an impressive understanding of voting behaviour and recent elections. However, there were many weaker responses, with students offering simplistic and highly overgeneralised responses. It is advisable not to attempt voting behaviour questions without a secure understanding of psephological concepts and convincing statistical evidence relating to voting behaviour and trends in recent elections. Many weaker students struggled with the question s demands and produced what appear to be pre-prepared responses. These were often oversimplified explanations of why Americans vote as they do, rather than whether US voting behaviour can be accurately predicted and what are the variables influencing it. There was some impressive evidence presented from both the 2008 and 2012 elections and the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms. Some students took the opportunity to explain changes in voting behaviour as a result of de-alignment (therefore less predictable) or re-alignment (as the south moving from Democrat to Republican voting since the 1960s). Some students explained short-term recency factors unrelated to predictability, which elicited few marks. Excellent students argued that predictability was easier when characteristics coincided (e.g. a rich, white, male, protestant voter living in the suburbs), and less so when the characteristics were cross-cutting (e.g. a rich, black, catholic, female voter from the rural south). The better-prepared students were able to give accurate supporting statistical evidence as well as psephological explanations. They discussed the links between the parties and the different kind of voting groups that tended to support them through habit voting resulting from their political socialisation. In their analysis they employed key psephological concepts such as primacy and recency factors, rational choice theories, salient issues, party identification and alignment, volatility and de-alignment and independent voters and core voters. Students gaining marks at the higher levels picked up on the wording of the question, arguing that there were variations between elections and that some voters switched in response to changing candidates and issues. Evidence included changes to the Hispanic and/or Catholic vote in the 7 of 10

8 2004 election in response to George W. Bush s campaign based around socially conservative issues and an attempt to woo Spanish-speaking Hispanic voters away from their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party. Some referred the changing gender gap in voting behaviour and to the fluctuations in the votes of both young and old. Others went as far back for their evidence as the breakdown of the New Deal Coalition and realignment of votes in the 1960s and to Reagan s success in wooing socially conservative Reagan Democrats to his new Republican coalition in the 1980s. This evidence was relevant to the question and was duly credited. 8 of 10

9 Topic 4 Pressure Groups Question 07 This question produced some weak responses with many students unable to focus on reasons why the US political system can be seen as favourable to the activities of pressure groups. This question, unlike many other questions, almost invited a comparative response with the more closed system of UK government, but such responses were not as common as expected. Many students saw this question variously, as on the functions of pressure groups, on reasons why people joined them or what methods they used. Stronger answers referred to the importance of the numerous access points created by the federal system and the separation of powers. They referred to the openness of the system of government, with entrenched first-amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and the right to petition government, leading to a focus on the guaranteed right to demonstrate, protest and engage in widespread political activities in order to influence. Excellent students also wrote of the impact of the weaker party system in the USA, which encouraged group activity, as well as the campaign finance system and the initiative process. Some argued that the increasing complexity of government and regulation of peoples lives, and the huge diversity of the US population in a pluralist society, were also conducive to pressure group activity. Question 08 There were variable responses to this question, with some extremely weak ones. The main problem was the failure to answer the question as set. It is important to highlight that some students appeared to be attempting to answer questions that had appeared on past papers on the extent to which pressure groups are good or bad for US pluralist democracy. Many students simply presented a list-like learned response of the methods used by pressure groups in the USA. Whilst some marks could be gained by describing lobbying, electoral endorsement or direct action, the higher AO2 marks could not be accessed when there was no attempt at any critical evaluation of such methods in terms of groups achieving their aims and objectives. The more focused answers did attempt a critique of the lobbying activities of pressure groups, often referring to the professional lobbyists of the K St corridor in DC, the inequalities of access, the criticism of the revolving door syndrome (often mentioned but less frequently explained and criticised) and the iron triangles of US government (again referred to often but rarely analysed with confidence). Weaker students simply discussed lobbying in the numerous access points (again not always sufficiently explained) but showed little understanding of the realities of the lobbying processes employed by pressure groups. Some good responses referred to the activities of Jack Abramoff and the Honest and Open Government Act. Similarly, many students referred to the electioneering and endorsement activities of pressure groups without offering any clear explanation of those activities and what groups were trying to do. Only a small minority referred to the impact of the FEC v Citizens United Supreme Court judgment and the boost to unregulated spending for and against candidates in elections by corporate and union groups in particular. Other activities, such as grass roots campaigning, direct action, peaceful protest and violent protest, was usually described rather than critically evaluated. There were several references to the bombing of federal government buildings in Oklahoma and the killing of abortion doctors. Disappointingly, there were very few critical references to the methods used by some pressure groups in trying to influence the outcome of direct democracy initiatives and the advantages enjoyed by wealthier, more organised groups in these apparently highly democratic devices. 9 of 10

10 Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 10 of 10

A-level GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

A-level GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS GOV3A The Politics of the USA Report on the Examination 2150 June 2013 Version: 1.0 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2013 AQA and its