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 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.
Unit 3A (GOV3A): The Politics of the USA General It is necessary to reiterate the point made in previous examination reports for GOV3A that the main reason that students do not do as well as expected is, apart from ineffective revision, the failure to answer the question. Although the majority have a great deal of knowledge of American politics they fail to marshal and direct this in response to the set questions which vary from year to year. This was evident in many of the responses to both the 10-mark questions and the essay questions on this year s paper. The most important advice to give to students is to read the question very carefully and not start to write before they have thought about its demands, so that a clear focus is kept on the question throughout the answer. Highly selective revision, often covering only two of the sections of the specification, is also evident as students are forced to attempt questions they cannot do justice to because they have not studied alternative questions in sufficient depth. At the same time, there is evidence that students are making fewer irrelevant references to UK politics. These references may be rewarded when they are used to demonstrate clear differences, such as references in Q04 to the highly organised and centralised parties in the UK compared to their much less organised US counterparts. The best students answers showed a clear understanding of the synoptic links between the specification topics they had studied and a clear contextual understanding of the actual operation of American politics within a completely different political system than that found in the UK. Up-to-date and accurate supporting evidence and examples were also rewarded sweeping and vague assertions were not. Topic 1 The Electoral Process and Direct Democracy Question 01 There was a variable response to this question. Weaker students often gave a very over-generalised description of campaign finance, including campaign spending, with little understanding of the two terms and the distinction between them. Even when there was an attempt to define the terms there was often confusion over the differences and a failure to explain how the terms arose from FECA in the 1970s and the attempt to regulate the use of money in American elections. Most students were able to indicate, at a minimum, the fact that the difference was to do with regulation and disclosure, with hard money being regulated and controlled and soft money arising from loopholes in legislation which they were able to explain. The better students covered the 1971 and 1974 FECA and their provisions, knew the role of the Federal Election Commission, understood that soft money loopholes had been closed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and were able give evidence of the regulated hard money by referring to the contribution limits on Political Action Committees and direct contributions to candidates. Excellent students identified loopholes such as issue advocacy and independent expenditures as well as showing knowledge of relevant Supreme Court decisions (a good example of synopticity) such as Citizens United v FEC 2010 and the subsequent rise of Super-Pacs, relating this to First Amendment rights to political speech. Question 02 Since direct democracy features in the specification for GOVP1 as well as in GOV3A, examiners were surprised to find that a significant minority of students did not understand the term and that, as a result, gave responses that were largely irrelevant, with several failing to gain any marks. Many were simply writing about American democracy with answers ranging across the Electoral 3 of 8
College, the use of primaries and caucuses, the election process itself and even the activities of pressure groups. Students who did understand direct democracy were able, first of all, to place it in context by indicating, for example, that it was found at state not national level. They were then able to distinguish between and explain its various forms: ie, referendums, initiatives and recall elections. Before addressing the quote in the question, good students were able to demonstrate understanding by explaining the different processes of direct democracy and how specific questions came to be placed on a ballot and voted on. The best students were able to specifically address the two distinct parts of the quotation and their marks were distinguished by the quality of analysis and evaluation of the two views they presented of the use of direct democracy in some US states. Excellent students often argued in favour of decisions being made by elected and accountable representatives in a representative democracy, as well as pointing out some of the weaknesses of direct democratic devices relating to issues, voters, minorities, special interests and unequal resources, for example. Weaker students stated that direct democracy led to voters being fatigued and too tired to vote and simply led to democratic overload. At the highest levels of response, students were able to demonstrate both attractive and undesirable by backing up their analysis with specific evidence taken from recent direct democratic processes in the USA. The majority of answers used Proposition 8 in California in 2008 as evidence (with a select few knowing that this was at the time under challenge in the Supreme Court) although there were also impressive references to the results of other ballots studied by students such as Proposition 13 in 1978 (which many knew had led to long term problems connected to California s budget), Big Green in 1992 or recent initiatives connected to controversial issues such as abortion, marijuana use or gay marriage. When discussing recall, most knew of the recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 but far fewer were aware of the more recent and controversial recall elections in Wisconsin in 2012. It is this kind of recent and relevant evidence that can be very impressive to examiners as it is evidence of serious study throughout the year. Topic 2 Political Parties Question 03 The majority of students found something of relevance to write about when answering this question. However, far fewer were able to contextualise their answer by explaining why US parties are described as internal coalitions and why they had to be in the American federal system. They explained that this led to very different state parties with different ideological beliefs and values representing a very diverse range of voters. Most were able to access marks because they recognised that internal coalitions referred to the variety of factions found within the big tent, catch-all umbrella parties of the USA and the more they were able to accurately describe and explain these factions within both parties the higher their mark was likely to be. Very good answers referred to groupings such as the conservative Blue Dogs and/or the liberal Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party and explained their policy and ideological differences even when they were in the same party. The same was the case with the identification of groupings such as the (declining) moderate Main Street Partnership or the Tea Party faction of fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican Party. Excellent students argued that although all parties are inevitably coalitions of differing beliefs, there was evidence of greater ideological cohesion in US parties in recent years, evidenced by greater partisanship in congressional voting compared to the past. 4 of 8
Question 04 This question presented the clearest distinctions between very good and very poor answers. There were three significant parts to this question: organisationally weak, in decline and still. The students who achieved the highest marks for this question were the ones whose answer focused on and covered all three, although not necessarily equally. A significant minority of poorly prepared students failed to focus on party organisation and their answers drifted into party ideology, voting behaviour or the failure of third parties, for which there were very few, if any, marks. The majority of students were aware that US parties are organisationally weak but fewer could explain why they were and how they were. There were very few contextual references explaining the de-centralisation of parties because of federalism, for example, and the lack of centrally and strongly organised parties as found in the UK with leaders, manifestos, party discipline and a mass membership such as those studied for GOVP1 and GOVP2. Those who could and did explain party weakness were rewarded if they were then able to explain why they were also said to be in decline. Most students were able to refer to David Broder s 1972 thesis that the Party is Over, with many analysing with evidence why that statement had some validity in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the word still was a discriminator and the best candidates knew of the recent arguments relating to the renewal or resurgence of US parties. Many argued that although they are still organisationally weak when compared to UK or European parties, there is much evidence of organisational strengthening through various changes that the parties themselves have implemented. Excellent students were able to give this evidence, weaker students just made the assertion that they have strengthened without presenting any supporting evidence such as national manifestos like the Contract with America in 1994, super-delegates, strengthening of the National Committees or greater party organisation in Congress leading to more partisan voting. On this last point, many very well-prepared students gave examples of such partisan voting from recent congressional votes. Weaker students drifted into explanations of the whipping system in the UK Parliament, whilst (wrongly) arguing that the US Congress did not have one. Topic 3 Voting Behaviour Question 05 Far too many responses to this question had very little understanding of what the New Deal Coalition of voters was and therefore they were unable to indicate the extent to which it still exists. This resulted in some very low marks for this question. The majority knew that it had something to do with the New Deal itself and many spent far too long describing this programme of economic and social reform, rather than the voters that it began to attract to the Democratic Party in the 1930s. The best students could describe and explain this new more liberal coalition, in addition to explaining the Democratic Party s retention of their conservative, white, southern voting base that had supported them since the Civil War. Good students identified the new coalition of poorer, blue-collar workers, minorities of various kinds and radicals attracted to the Democratic Party in the 1930s. They could also give evidence from recent elections that most of that voting coalition still supported the Democratic Party, especially the minority voters. However, with reference to still, the better answers indicated that the coalition broke down in the 1960s when the south realigned to support the Republican Party (just as the black vote had realigned in the 1930s to support the Democratic Party) after the Democratic Party began supporting Civil Rights. Excellent students also knew that in the 1970s and 1980s many blue-collar 5 of 8
Democratic voters, alienated by the party s liberalism, began to support the Republican Party the so-called Reagan Democrats'. They gave this as evidence of the further breakdown of the Democratic Party s New Deal Coalition of voters and were highly rewarded for this. Question 06 This was the most popular question on the paper and elicited a very variable response. Many voting behaviour questions in the past have attracted weaker students who simply wish to reproduce learnt lists of which voters vote for which parties, with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy and little regard to what the specific question is asking. This was no exception, regardless of the fact that this particular question was asking whether the long term, primacy, social and economic characteristics of the voters themselves leading to a voter-party alignment was more important in explaining the behaviour of voters than the different short-term recency factors surrounding each election. Weaker students ignored the question and gave a descriptive list of factors that influence voting behaviour and who votes for whom. This was usually answered with little accurate evidence or developed explanations. Nevertheless, some low-level marks could be gained from such a response. As ever with voting behaviour questions, the best students illustrated their answer with psephological language and theory such as partisan alignment and party identification acquired by socialisation into habit and relatively unchanging voting, and also with clear and accurate voting evidence from recent elections. Students who began their answer in this way prevented it from becoming a simple list with little relevance to the question. The best answers ranged across both primacy and recency factors. Primacy factors ranged from a discussion of the impact of socio-economic status and race/ethnicity to gender, religion and region on partisan alignment and voting. Many weaker students were unsure of the impact of recency factors, such as, the candidates themselves, the variable issues surrounding each particular election and the events that may have preceded them that were salient and potential vote changers, especially for de-aligned swing voters lacking a strong partisan alignment. Excellent answers were able to demonstrate evidence of all three factors at work in recent elections, citing the importance of candidates images in a media-dominated age (helping or hindering candidates), the salient issues (often single-issue) which change at each election such as the economy, stupid in 1992 and 2008, and the moral wedge issues in 2004 which changed votes and had a differential impact on voters, as well as the hard to predict events that occur and cause an impact such as 9/11, the War on Terror and National Security in 2004 or Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Students who could draw on their knowledge and understanding of voting (and changes to it) in recent elections and were able to use it as evidence in their answer, fared well on this question. Students who simply wrote out their list did not. Topic 4 Pressure Groups Question 07 This was another question that elicited a very mixed response. Many weak students were unable to give a clear definition at the outset and so their answer could not progress from there. Others knew there are three parts to a triangle but were confused as to what the three parts were in the USA. Most made no reference to the importance of iron in the term. As this was part of the pressure group section of the specification it was clear that the focus should be placed on this part of the triangle. Good students were able to do this and gained high marks, especially if they could 6 of 8
give examples of pressure groups known to be in iron triangles such as those in defence, agriculture or veterans affairs and how they worked in practice in the decision-making process, thus relating their answer to importance. Excellent students referred to elite theory, sub-governments, clientelism, insider status for some special interest pressure groups rather than others, and democratic status. Some excellent students questioned the importance of iron triangles today, rather than when Eisenhower warned against their influence in 1961, because of the greater transparency and knowledge of what they are and what they do. There were several weak responses to this question with far too many references to groups like the NRA, or a simple description of powerful but irrelevant pressure groups. Question 08 This was the least popular question on the paper, and drew a very mixed response. Weaker students seemed to have difficulty answering specific questions on pressure groups and their roles, activities, representative nature and democratic status and tended to give over-generalised accounts of what pressure groups are (not always adequately defined) and what they do (not always adequately explained), regardless of the question. Better students saw that the quote was a challenging one requiring both essential and beneficial to be addressed, as well as the concept of representative democracy. Several students tried to turn this into a question asked in a previous paper as to whether pressure groups help or hinder democracy, and although some marks could be gained by this approach, the higher level marks could not. The majority of good students took a balanced approach to this question. Whilst able to argue how and why pressure groups are essential to the representation of voters specific interests or causes, especially minority ones (unlike their blanket vote for catch-all parties at elections) and were essential, for example, to provide information to legislators or to encourage participation and engagement in political activities between elections, they recognised that there was an alternative view that they did not always measure up to this beneficial and essential description. Excellent students were able to place their arguments in a theoretical perspective, referring both to pluralist and elite theories of pressure groups, with supporting analysis and evidence from pressure group activity. The best answers supported this analysis and evaluation with strong evidence and examples of several pressure groups as representative political institutions like the NAACP and the AARP (and not just the ubiquitous NRA), referring, for example, to lobbying, countervailing groups, funding, direct action, the revolving door, etc. Weak answers drifted into description of methods, especially the shooting of doctors in abortion clinics, with their answers lacking accurate (or any) examples that would fit the question asked. There were, however, some excellent references to the recent role of the NRA and the blocking of background gun checks after the Sandy Hook massacre, with many students questioning the representative nature of a 5 million strong organisation working to prevent the wishes of the majority of the population to have some gun control, despite the 2nd Amendment. This is different from simply describing the NRA as powerful. 7 of 8
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 www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion 8 of 8