Review for Exam #1

Exam #1 takes place during class time on Friday, September 20.  You simply need to bring pen and photo ID.  The exam will consist of 5 sections; 4 of these will be short essays, and the other will be 5 true-false questions.  Each section is worth 5 points, and you must do a total of 3 sections (either 3 short essays, or two short essays and all of the true-false).  DO THREE SECTIONS, BUT ONLY THREE SECTIONS.

To prepare for the exam, you should read through the blog assignments, especially the one due on September 16 (conditions of aid).  You should be familiar with my posts, the articles I link to, and the comments of your colleagues.  In terms of material covered in class, you should be familiar with the first two sets of lecture notes (white packet on comparing states, and federalism; blue sheet on interest groups and parties, and the first portion of the pink packet—just the section on voter turnout).  Specifically, from class, you should be familiar with:
Why we compare states.

The three types of political culture.
The origins of the federal system.
The major events in the development of federalism over time.
The different types of fiscal federalism.
The importance of conditions of aid.
The changes to fiscal federalism under Ronald Reagan.
Why some states get more federal aid than do others.
The interaction between Dillon's Rule and Home Rule
Why some states give more power to local government than do others.
Why some interest groups are more likely to form than others (the "Free Rider" problem).
The reasons for the decline of political parties in the states.
The difficulties facing third parties (with perhaps extra emphasis on single member plurality).
Why third parties sometimes overcome these difficulties.
Why voter turnout is higher in some states than it is in others.

I will have my usual office hours on Wednesday, September 18, in case you want to ask questions.  You can also email them to me at the email address on the syllabus, until 9 pm on September 19.  I will also be in my office most of the 18^th.  Finally, you may post questions to the blog under this topic.  I’ll answer any questions posted on the blog by 9 pm, on September 19.  Good luck!--NB

Blog Assignment Due September 16

This week's question has to do with fiscal federalism, the relationship where the national government collects tax money and then returns it to state and local governments in the form of grants.  I want you to focus on some key points.  First, fiscal federalism is a major source of money for state and local governments, accounting for about 25% of their revenue.  Second, the national government attaches strings to some of that revenue, known as "conditions of aid".  These serve to get around the 10th Amendment and allow the national government to gain more power.

You'll recall that the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) said that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it), that power went to the states.  Now the McCulloch v. Maryland decision weakened the 10th Amendment (through the Implied Powers Doctrine, or Necessary and Proper Clause), but even after that, there are still things that the national government can't require states to do.  The national government has worked around this through fiscal federalism.

The way it works is the national government passes a law that says if states don't do some particular thing, they will lose a certain percentage of their federal funding for some particular purpose.  Examples include using the threat of losing highway grant money to get states to:  raise the drinking age to 21, lower the speed limit to 55 (no longer in effect), or lower the cutoff for DUI from .10% to .08%.  These were laws predominantly passed by Democrats (though the speed limit law was more Easterners vs. Westerners, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the law effectively raising the drinking age) who argued that they were simply providing the states with incentives to provide good public policy.  Republicans (and others) opposing those laws said they were simply an example of the national government bullying the states into doing things they couldn't require them to do.

The ideological debate shifted, though, with the passage of the "No Child Left Behind" Act, a major
initiative of President George W. Bush.  Part of that act specified that states and school districts would lose some of their education funding if they didn't meet certain targets on student testing.  Suddenly, some Republicans who had claimed other initiatives were bullying found that this one was OK.  And some Democrats who had supported the other initiatives became born-again supporters of states' rights.  One could argue hypocrisy on both sides.

Here are two short pieces on the controversy surrounding the drinking age law.  Please read them before you comment.
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

You can find a great deal more out there on conditions of aid if you are creative, including some scholarly articles.  You should address the question of whether you believe the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states.  If so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on this procedure?  You should NOT address the question of what you think the drinking age should be.  Please feel free to debate with one another, so long as you keep your discussion respectful.  You may also refer to class lectures and discussions.  Comments should be posted by 1:00 pm on Monday, September 16, and, again, you can earn between 1/2 point and 3 points toward the blog portion of your grade.--NB

Blog grades posted--please check

Hi, everyone!  I've just posted grades for the first two blog assignments (write your name--2 points; should POLS 220 be required?--3 points) on eCampus.  There is a combined grade for the two assignments (out of 5 possible points).  Please check your grade, and note three things:
1.  In a class of 200, clerical errors are possible.
2.  If you emailed me on the first assignment (posting problems) and I said I'd give you credit, that's not reflected in the current grade post.  If that's the case, please email me again at berchnorto@msn.com, and I'll be able to check my email log, verify, and change the grade.
3.  Grades on the second assignment ranged from 1 to 3.  Better answers refer to things said in class, refer to comments of classmates, offer links to relevant web sites, and offer significant analysis.  It's hard to do a full-credit comment in two sentences.  Look over the comments of your colleagues, and you'll get a better sense of what I'm talking about.

Don't forget that the next blog assignment (on conditions of aid) is due on Monday, September 16.  Also, note that exam #1 takes place (yes, I've mentioned this once or twice in class) on Friday, September 20.  Review sheet will be posted to blog on Tuesday and available in class on Wednesday.  Email if you have questions!--NB

Lecture Notes #2

POLS 220

Berch

Fall 2013

 

Interest Groups

 

Review:  Two Major Ways For Citizens to Influence Government

A.       Elections

B.      Interest Groups

C.      US emphasizes interest groups; weak parties.

D.      Within US, party strength and competition influence interest group importance

 

Interest Groups

A.       Where there’s an interest, there may or may not be an interest group

1.        Demonstrate free rider

2.       Implication:  not all groups form; there’s a class bias—free rider has major effect

3.       Contradicts pluralist theory

B.       So, level of interest group strength is unimportant unless we know which groups are strong

C.      Banking, insurance, and legal interest groups tend to exert quiet power

 

Parties and Elections

 

Decline of Parties

A.       Campaign styles—labor intensive vs. capital intensive

B.      Open primaries (two senses)

1.        Open vs. smoke-filled rooms

2.       Closed vs. open vs. blanket (Supreme Court intervenes)

C.       Patronage reduced in importance (most places)

D.      Welfare function reduced in importance

E.       Non-partisan local elections

1.        Maybe not—Seattle story

2.       Not much of a factor in the Northeast

 

What about third parties?

A.       Problems

1.        Money

2.       Publicity

3.       Single-member plurality

4.       Election laws and administration

B.       BUT:  1990 may have changed things

1.        Hickel

2.       Sanders (and reelected)

3.       Weicker

4.       Can they govern?

C.       1994 was a good year, too

1.        Sanders reelected again

2.       Connecticut and Alaska parties put up good efforts

3.       Independent governor elected in Maine

4.       Third parties and independents had major effects in NM (Greens), OK (Gov. race), UT (Cong), NY (Gov)

5.       1996—scattered victories in local elections

6.       1998—another good year (THE MIND, and King reelected)

7.       2000—some local successes, but lesser evil problem arises, too.

8.       2002—third parties held their own

9.       2004—less impact (due to 2000)

10.   2006—interesting twist (Lieberman)

11.   2008—not a big year for third parties

12.   2010—Rhode Island win, other close calls

13.   2012—King is back!

14.   2014—too early to tell, but Chafee isn’t running for reelection

Lecture Notes #1

POLS 220

Berch

Fall 2013

 

Introduction

 

Overview of Course

A.       Setting/Rules of Game/Context/Federalism

B.       How Citizens Try to Influence Government:  Parties and Elections

C.       Who They Influence:  Institutions

D.       Policy Outcomes

 

Why Study State and Local Politics?

A.       Look at Newspapers

B.      Look at WVU tuition, admissions standards—demographics, geography matter

C.      Why are welfare payments higher in Connecticut than Mississippi?  Wealth and ideology

D.      Why does Idaho have a higher percentage of women in the state legislature than New York?  Rules matter, and so does culture.

E.       Why does New York’s legislature make fewer technical mistakes than West Virginia’s?

F.       Why is voter turnout higher in Maine than in Missouri?  Political culture, rules.

G.     States make a great laboratory; similar but not the same.

 

Why Have States Anyway?

 

Political Culture—Elazar

A.       Individualistic—politics as marketplace

B.      Moralistic—politics to improve society

C.      Traditionalistic—politics to maintain the existing order

 

 

Federalism

 

A History of Federalism

A.       Origins

1.        Problems with Articles of Confederation

a.        Lack of national unity

b.      Lack of coordination

2.        Options

a.        Unitary system

b.      Confederation

c.       Federalism

B.       10^th Amendment

C.       Federalists vs. anti-Federalists

1.        Alien and Sedition Acts

2.       Interposition and Nullification—VA and KY Resolutions

D.       Marbury v. Madison

E.       Louisiana Purchase

F.       McCulloch v. Maryland

G.     Civil War

H.      13^th Amendment

I.        14^th Amendment

J.        15^th Amendment

K.      16^th Amendment

L.       Government Assumes Welfare Role

M.    Civil Rights Decisions

 

Fiscal Federalism

A.       Major source of money for states and localities

B.      Two ways of classifying different types

1.        Level of discretion

a.        Categorical grants—least discretion, very specific purposes

b.      Block grants—moderate discretion—general areas—most money in these

c.       General Revenue Sharing—total state or local discretion—good points and bad points.  Abolished in mid 1980s

2.        Method of allocation

a.        Project—many categorical grants but not much money—application process, class bias

b.      Formula grants—virtually all block grants, some categorical, and (before abolition) all revenue sharing

C.       Conditions of aid allow policy control that cannot be mandated

1.        Speed limit enforcement

2.       Drinking age

3.       Blood Alcohol level

4.       No Child Left Behind

5.       Extortion?  Or good public policy?

 

The Reagan Years

A.       Irony:  let states do more, but give them less money

B.      Some movement from categorical to block grants

C.      Elimination of Revenue sharing

D.      Reduction in overall grant money—largely restored in Bush (Papa) administration.

E.       Consequences

1.        States and localities do more with less

2.       Fiscal crises

3.       Governors are blamed

4.       Attempts at creativity

a.        WV higher education

b.      Oregon health care

c.       Not likely to be enough to compensate

 

Some States Do Better Than Others

A.       Huge variation from state to state

B.      Some is obvious—AK, WY highways

C.      Small states did better in early 1980s—ganged up on California

D.      Large states did better in mid 1980s—critical mass

E.       Not California—homogeneity, unity important

F.       Lobbying offices

G.     Governor in Congress—knows ropes, sees potential (governor is growing in importance)

H.      Did Byrd matter?

1.        Committee assignments, seniority don’t figure in model

2.       We notice project grants, but money is in formula grants

3.       Byrd didn’t do grants so much as federal expenditures

4.       Maybe Byrd was the exception that proved the rule

 

Summary of History

A.       Shift from state to national control

B.      Shift from layer cake (dual) to marble cake (cooperative) federalism

 

Larger and Smaller Governments

A.       Regional Bodies

1.        Relates to question of why states

2.       Examples:

a.        NW Power Supply

b.      Port Authority of NY and NJ

c.       Appalachian Regional Commission

3.        Is this a trend?

B.       Localities

1.        Dillon’s Rule

2.       Home Rule

3.       Lots of state-to-state variation--$ is often key

4.       Most centralized states:  DE, NM, WV, HI

5.       Least centralized states:  CO, OR, TX, NY, NH

6.       Why?  Not sure, perhaps homogeneity

7.       WV:  Caperton tried to change through amendment, voters turned down