critical thinking questions about political parties

12 General Critical Thinking Questions About Voting And Government

Critical Thinking Questions About Voting & Government by Terry Heick Just a quick post that’s self-explanatory enough: It’s almost #ElectionDay! Some questions for student critical thinking: What is the relationship between voting and democracy? How does critical thinking affect the quality of a democracy? What information is essential for voters to make an informed decision…

critical thinking questions about political parties

Critical Thinking Questions About Voting & Government

by Terry Heick

Just a quick post that’s self-explanatory enough:

It’s almost #ElectionDay ! Some questions for student critical thinking: What is the relationship between voting and democracy? How does critical thinking affect the quality of a democracy? What information is essential for voters to make an informed decision about candidates? pic.twitter.com/0EODQbrLAO — TeachThought (@TeachThought) November 5, 2018

12 General Critical Thinking Questions About Voting & Government

1. What is the relationship between voting and democracy?

2. How does critical thinking affect the quality and function of a democracy?

3. What information is essential for voters to make an informed decision about candidates?

4. Who decides if a previously elected official performed well or not and how should that data be used to elect future officials? Put another way, how should past elections and performed duties affect future elections?

5. Why does campaign spending matter? What rules should exist, if any, about the claims and accusations of political campaigns?

6. How can social media be used–and misused–to clarify the quality of a candidate?

7. What are the pros and cons of democracy? How has the age of information and social media changed democracy as it is perceived and functions?

8. What does the current state of campaign advertising and marketing–especially on social media–imply about what candidates believe about voters?

9. What are the qualities of a great leader in any political context?

10. What role does bias–and confirmation bias–play in elections?

11. What is ‘fake news’? Who decides what’s ‘fake’? How does ‘fake news’ work? How does it affect democracy short and long-term?

12. What does the past of American government say about the future of American government?

Founder & Director of TeachThought

Tips for Thinking Critically About Political Beliefs

How to distinguish beliefs from facts and applying this to engaging politics..

Posted May 7, 2021 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

It’s been over 100 days now since Joe Biden took office as U.S. President, and whether you believe the change to be for better or worse is irrelevant because, essentially, we’re looking at belief systems here. Consistent with a previous post on this blog a few years back, one must acknowledge that, given the existence of at least two political sides in most Western societies, there exists more than one perspective on how a country should be run and its people governed. As I also mentioned in that post, if there was one true, correct way to conduct these tasks, then we would probably have adopted it by now.

But there isn’t one true, correct way—each and every individual has their own set of beliefs on how said tasks should be done. Of course, you might try to change other people’s minds , but getting someone to change their mind is not easy, especially if you’re trying to get them to change their beliefs . The problem with beliefs is that they aren’t necessarily factual, as implied above—just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it so.

Moreover, someone’s politics are a set of beliefs developed in light of what they believe to be right and just. This issue throws a further spanner into the works, given that the concept of what is morally "right" or "just" is by no means universal. Morality and the concepts of right and wrong are relative—what is unjust to some might be no problem for another, and likewise, what one believes to be right might be perceived as completely unjust to another.

Again, this is why political debate lives on. In my last post on politics , I recommended that people who value critical thinking should avoid party affiliations and take on a centrist role if they are to engage political debate, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each party and making judgments in light of these about how they believe their country should be run and its people governed. In this piece, I maintain that perspective but also argue that "siding" with the left or right is a rather pointless endeavor.

One of my pet peeves (yes, I’m aware that subjective emotion is at play here) is when people quote historical figures to help support the point they’re trying to make, such as in social media posts, without really understanding the figure’s background or even the context from which the quote originates. I often see quotes by Karl Marx regarding the evils of capitalism and, on the other hand, quotes from Adam Smith regarding the great benefits of capitalism. Given that both these individuals are long deceased, the reality is that neither truly understands the nature of capitalism—or communism (or socialism for that matter)—as we know them in the 21st century. Likewise, the people who generally quote either of these historical figures often don’t really understand the foundations or historical context from which these two were speaking. Hell, many people today confuse socialism and communism!

Is capitalism evil? No. Is communism evil? No. Neither construct is evil. In fact, both were "developed" in an effort to benefit society as best as possible. What makes them appear "evil" is the potential for corruption of the system, and many readers of this blog know a little something about human nature from a psychological basis—people will generally select actions that self-preserve, self-serve, and self-protect. As a result, people—who are fallible—will, from time to time, make decisions that benefit themselves at the cost of others to some extent, thus facilitating the potential for corruption.

Regular readers of this blog will also know that I am not an advocate of using personal experience as the primary rationale for a decision, but in this case, I use it to support the logic I provided above. I’ve lived in two countries in my life—one with a "capitalist slant" and one with a "socialist slant."

Guess what?

They both have their positives, and they both have their negatives, and neither is fully devoid of alleged corruption. For those who have only lived in one type of country and focus on the negatives of living there, it’s only likely that from this "unhappiness," you will wonder if "the grass is greener on the other side." However, if you think critically about it, you’ll see both the negatives and the positives.

So, with that, I have a recommendation. If you are truly against how your country is run, you could consider leaving it and living in another country where you think things are better. I don’t mean that in the old "like it or leave it" way; I genuinely mean it as a considered, viable alternative.

Of course, you must also recognize that if you live in a country where you are allowed to leave, that country probably isn’t as bad as you think it is. Alternatively… and I hate using such a clichéd phrase, but "be the change you want to see in the world"—or your country at least. That is, consider entering politics.

Start small and run for local office, making contributions all along your rise. If you don’t win office, it might just be that not enough people agree with how you think things should be run—indicating, also, that not everyone shares your beliefs . Then again, if you don’t care enough about being that change or doing anything about what you see as wrong (other than simply pointing out the negatives), then you should probably do something else other than thinking about politics. Having that kind of negativity in your life is not good for your mental well-being!

Now, please don’t misinterpret my position as implying that politics are pointless. They aren’t. What I am saying is that the level to which people seem to have been riled up over politics in recent years, without doing anything productive about it, is pointless and is seriously lacking in critical thought. If you’re politically minded, great—do something contextually productive. If not, that’s fine too—vote for the candidate that you trust more than the others, in terms of believing that they will do the things that best reflect your beliefs of how things should be done and how people should be governed.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Political Questions to Ask: A Critical Inquiry into Modern Politics

Political Theory

Are you in favor of term limits for politicians? How can the government address income inequality?

As a concerned citizen, understanding the important political questions to ask is crucial for staying informed and making informed decisions. By asking the right questions, we can hold our leaders accountable and push for positive change. Whether it’s about government transparency, social justice, or foreign policy, the questions we raise can shape the direction of our nation.

By delving into these essential inquiries, we can actively participate in shaping the future of our society and ensure that the voices of the people are heard. Let’s explore the most pressing political questions and bring attention to the issues that matter most.

The Evolution Of Modern Politics

Modern politics has undergone significant changes over time, shaped by historical events and the shifting political landscape. Understanding the evolution of modern politics provides valuable insights into the current state of political affairs and sets the stage for examining relevant political questions.

Historical Perspective

The roots of modern politics can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome, where the concept of democracy began to take shape. Fast forward to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, pivotal periods that laid the intellectual groundwork for modern political thought. The Industrial Revolution and the emergence of nation-states further transformed political structures, ultimately leading to the diverse political systems present in the contemporary world.

Changing Political Landscape

The 20th and 21st centuries witnessed rapid geopolitical changes, including two world wars, the Cold War, and the globalization of economies. These transformative events reshaped international relations, redefined the roles of major powers, and gave rise to new political ideologies and movements. Moreover, technological advancements and the digital age have revolutionized political communication and activism, altering the dynamics of electoral processes and public engagement.

Significance Of Critical Inquiry

The significance of critical inquiry in politics cannot be overstated. Asking the right questions and delving into the intricacies of political issues is paramount for making informed decisions, understanding complex power dynamics, and uncovering hidden agendas. It is through critical inquiry that individuals can gain a deeper understanding of political mechanisms and contribute to a more transparent and accountable governance.

Understanding The Power Dynamics

Critical inquiry in politics enables individuals to comprehend the intricate power dynamics at play within a political system. By questioning the allocation and exercise of power , citizens can evaluate how decisions are made and who benefits from them. This understanding empowers individuals to hold their representatives accountable and advocate for a more equitable distribution of power.

Uncovering Political Agendas

Through critical inquiry, individuals can uncover the underlying motives and intentions behind political actions and policies. By asking probing questions about the potential impact of certain decisions, citizens can discern whether political agendas align with public interests or serve special interest groups. This keen scrutiny facilitates transparency and helps prevent the advancement of hidden political objectives.

Political Questions To Ask: A Critical Inquiry Into Modern Politics

Understanding the intricacies of modern politics involves asking the right questions. Engaging in critical inquiry enables individuals to grasp the impact of political decisions and engage with political figures to gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics at play. By delving into the following focuses, we can shed light on the critical aspects of today’s political landscape.

Impact Of Political Decisions

Political decisions reverberate throughout society, shaping various aspects of our lives. It’s essential to examine the repercussions of these decisions and understand how they directly influence the economy, social welfare, and global relations. By asking probing questions about the rationale behind policies and legislation, individuals can gain insights into the underlying motivations and their potential impacts.

Engaging With Political Figures

Engaging with political figures provides a direct avenue for understanding the ideologies and intentions that drive political agendas. By asking thought-provoking questions during public forums, town hall meetings, or interviews, individuals can gain valuable insights into the thought processes of leaders and policymakers. Furthermore, engaging with political figures helps in holding them accountable for their actions and decisions, fostering a more transparent and responsive political environment.

Balancing Objectivity And Advocacy

In a political context, balancing objectivity and advocacy is crucial when asking questions. It involves navigating the fine line between presenting various perspectives objectively and advocating for ethical considerations. This balance ensures that inquiry into political matters is conducted with fairness and integrity.

Observing Key Perspectives

When discussing political issues, it’s important to observe key perspectives from various angles. Understanding different viewpoints allows for a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand. By exploring diverse viewpoints, one can gain a clearer insight into the complexities of political matters and foster a more nuanced discourse.

Ethical Considerations In Inquiry

Ethical considerations play a pivotal role in the formulation of political questions. Questions should be framed in a manner that upholds ethical standards and respects the dignity and rights of individuals and communities. This includes maintaining sensitivity to potentially contentious topics and ensuring that the inquiry prioritizes the well-being of all parties involved.

Navigating Complex Political Scenarios

Navigating complex political scenarios can be challenging, especially when it comes to understanding the impact of media, recognizing political propaganda, and effectively engaging in political conversations. By asking the right questions, individuals can equip themselves with the knowledge needed to navigate these complex situations and make informed decisions.

Media Influence On Public Opinion

The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing political discourse. Understanding the influence of the media is crucial for engaging in well-informed conversations and making educated decisions. When faced with political questions, consider the following:

How does the media portray different political ideologies and candidates?
What biases may exist in the media coverage of political events and individuals?
Are there reliable sources for obtaining unbiased political information?

Responding To Political Propaganda

Political propaganda can be deceptive and misleading, often aiming to sway public opinion in favor of a particular agenda or individual. When encountering political propaganda, it is essential to critically analyze the information presented. Here are some questions to consider:

What is the intent behind the information being presented?
Are there credible sources to verify the claims made in the propaganda?
How can one effectively counter misinformation and propaganda in political discussions?

Political Questions to Ask : A Critical Inquiry into Modern Politics

Credit: www.amazon.com

Frequently Asked Questions Of Political Questions To Ask

What are important political questions for voters to consider.

When considering political questions, voters should ask about candidates’ stances on key issues, their plans for addressing them, and their past voting records. It’s important to inquire about candidate accountability, integrity, and their potential impact on critical policies.

How Can I Prepare For Political Discussions With Others?

Engage in thorough research on political topics, understand different viewpoints, and be open to civil discourse. It’s important to listen actively, validate others’ perspectives, and cite credible sources. Ensuring mutual respect and using evidence to support arguments can enhance the effectiveness of political discussions.

How Do Political Questions Influence Decision-making?

Political questions play a crucial role in shaping decisions by shedding light on various policy aspects and candidate qualifications. When well-informed, citizens’ decisions lead to better governance and societal development. Inquiring about detailed political agendas helps voters comprehend the potential impacts of their choices.

Asking the right political questions is crucial for understanding and shaping the world around us. By delving into challenging topics and seeking diverse perspectives, we open the door to critical thinking and informed decision-making. Whether it’s about policy, leadership, or societal values, these questions drive conversation and progress.

Keep questioning, keep learning, keep evolving.

Politics of aristotle pdf: discover ancient wisdom, political map of brazil : unveiling the geographic diversity, roe v wade political cartoon: provocative illustrations, america’s political culture: unveiling the core values, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

© 2023 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY - PoliticalScienceGuru

By joining our mailing list, you’re not just subscribing to a newsletter; you’re becoming part of the PoliticalScienceGuru.com family.

Ben Liberto, who teaches Government in Milford High School, MA, the Ten Questions framework to facilitate political conversations in classroom. * Ben was one of the Ten Questions Teacher Leaders .

Political Affiliations Project DIRECTIONS:

Your assignment is to interview your family members and talk politics with them. Have a discussion with your parents, guardians, aunts, uncles, grandparents, older siblings, etc. and see what matters most to them.

Some questions to ask:

Why does it [politics] matter to me?
Is there a way to make politics/government about more than myself? (In other words, is there a way to get people involved that doesn’t boil down to the “it’s in my best interests to get involved”)
What do you think are the most important issues facing the United States today? If you were in charge, how would you propose we fix or address those issues?
Putting cynicism aside, do you think there are any issues that Republicans and Democrats agree on, and if so, which ones?
Most people tend to have a cynical view about politicians (ex. – “all politicians are corrupt and are in it for themselves”) – if you do have such views, what do you think we as a nation can do to elect better people to office?
What, if anything, do you do to try and promote good and effective government at the local, state, or federal level?

Try to speak with as many family members as you can (by the way, this makes for an awesome discussion at Thanksgiving). Once you’ve collected your information, reflect on their views. What do you think about your family’s answers? If you disagreed strongly with any of them, how do you think you and they can come to some sort of compromise?

This assignment will take the form of a narrative, informal essay where you discuss your findings. You are NOT to share your own political views in this essay – I only want you to examine what your family thinks about politics and reflect on their views.”

Questions 1 and 2 are slightly modified from their original versions in the 10 Questions themselves, but I felt it would help clarify them as my students engaged with their family members. The goal of this particular assignment is not just to get my students to think and discuss politics with their family members, but also to try and see how to build a dialogue with family members they may disagree with.

Part of my motivation in this assignment is the story of Daryl Davis, the African-American man who has spent much of his life reaching out to members of the KKK and listening to them and talking with them. He has managed to get many members of the Klan to ultimately renounce their views and that organization, and ultimately I think Davis’ model is how we should all strive to act with people who do not share our views: with open ears and open hearts. Seeing all of the divisive rhetoric – whether it’s the internet trolls of 4chan or reddit or protestors on the streets – tends to turn us off from politics, and, more to the point, those people aren’t even talking to each other. They’re talking (yelling, really) over each other, and the goal isn’t civil discourse, but rather simply proving the other side wrong.

So my goal was to get my students talking, and, what better place to start then right at home? I know political discussions – especially around the holidays – can get very heated, but I felt this was as good a place as any to start.

The assignment clearly states that my students are not to share their own political views. That’s because I have serious ethical reservations about having my students share their views with me (I suppose this goes to question 2, “How much should I share?”). I do not share my own political views with my students because I do not want to influence or bias them in such a way – I firmly believe that the best thing I can do as an educator in this regard is to be as objective as I possibly can, and arm them with as much evidence, reason, and critical thinking skills so that they can figure things out for themselves. I firmly believe that were I to try and indoctrinate them in my own beliefs, I may hold sway over them for a time, but ultimately, they would resent me and my views.

As of this writing, I don’t have much to report on the project. I tried holding off this journal as long as possible, but I have run out of time! The due date for this particular assignment for my Government students (I should mention that they are mostly seniors with a few juniors scattered into the mix) is Monday, December 18th. The timing isn’t ideal, but I had a couple of other assignments due earlier in the month and I didn’t want to overwhelm them by making this interview assignment due at the same time just so I could meet a deadline. Still, I am curious as to what my students will report come Monday when they come in.

One of the things I have found frustrating is that my Government classes at Milford High are only one semester long. While there is some talk of making Government full-year (and incorporating a heavy dose of civics as well), that is still well beyond the horizon. For now, my time with my current students is rapidly coming to a close (our semester will end in mid-January).

The only good news I can take away from that is the fact that when my spring semester government classes begin, I will start with the Ten Questions right away. I’m not entirely sure how I’m going to integrate them beyond my politics assignment, but I have some ideas as to how I can make it part of my students’ weekly news discussions.

Ben Liberto/ Milford High School

* The original post is found here .

Featured Posts

Grade 8 Civics Workbook Available Online!

Student-Led Civics Workbook

10 Questions Primer

Facing History and Ourselves with 10 Questions for Young Changemakers –– Student Activism

Facing History with the YPP Action Frame––Focusing on Eyes on the Prize: Ain’t Scared of Your Jails

Danielle Allen on Civic Agency in a Digital Age

Blog posts by month

November 2016 (1)

October 2016 (2)

August 2016 (2)

June 2016 (1)

April 2016 (3)

The Politics of Critical Thinking

Redefining critical thinking and encouraging its widespread adoption could lead to a healthier and more productive public discourse.

By Ilana Redstone

If there were a single, low-cost strategy we could implement that could both soften the sharper edges of our political divide and diminish the hostility in our national conversations, would we do it? And if the same strategy might lead to a more engaged and productive discourse, would we jump at the chance? I would love to say yes, but I’d be wrong.

People of different political convictions don’t agree on much these days. From minor issues—whether Ellen’s apology was heartfelt—to major ones— how to proceed with filling the Supreme Court spot left vacant by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—there’s precious little common ground.

Given how far apart the two sides are, one would be forgiven for assuming we’d do everything possible to move forward in any area where we found common ground. One of those rare areas, at least in principle, is the need for a populace capable of critical thinking. Critical thinking is necessary for businesses to remain competitive by fostering innovation, and it’s essential for the health of our society through supporting democratic norms of debate and dissent. However, it turns out that this most fundamental skill has itself fallen victim to politics.

And yet it’s clear that, when it comes to our conversations on sensitive social and political issues, we have a real problem—one that critical thinking could help solve. Too often, conversations deteriorate into name-calling and bad-faith assessments of the other person’s motivations. These interactions can only be productive when advocates of the ideas in question allow them to be subject to criticism and debate rather than placing them on a pedestal. Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, examined, and challenged.

The antidote to treating ideas as though they’re exempt from scrutiny—the discourse-killing approach referenced above—is critical thinking. But critical thinking is a slippery term. How else could we describe something that everyone thinks should be a priority, yet somehow few people seem to be able to do? (More on that claim in a minute.) It’s probably not due to a lack of goodwill. After all, I’d be shocked to find any educator who doesn’t value or encourage critical thinking by students. So, what’s going on?

In articles and studies in which authors express concern about low levels of critical thinking skills, they’re usually referring to something specific. Frequently, it’s folded in with the related skills of reasoning and problem-solving. This is almost certainly the definition used in the 2011 book Academically Adrift . In that study, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa used data from student surveys and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to evaluate what exactly students are learning in college. According to a review in “Inside Higher Education,” the authors found that, “45 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ during the first two years of college” and “36 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ over four years of college.” In that same review, Arum states his concern as follows: “You can't have a democratic society when the elite—the college-educated kids—don't have these abilities to think critically.”

Yet, as grim as Arum and Roksa’s portrait is, the situation is arguably even worse. The CLA measured critical thinking and problem-solving together, using well-known sample performance tasks. In these tasks, students were given a set of information and asked to solve a problem drawing on the information provided. As shocking as it is to learn that many students struggled with this charge, an even more alarming finding with direct political implications has become apparent: Many students lack a basic ability to criticize ideas .

A Forbes.com article from Sept. 21, 2020, puts this in perspective while spotlighting an important asymmetry. The headline reads “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons Or Critical Thinking: You Can’t Have Both.” The article referred to an executive order to create the 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic education” in U.S. schools. This commission is widely seen as a countermove to the popular 1619 Project , which some see as advocating a wrong-headed view of America that runs counter to its founding values.

The Forbes.com author is, of course, correct. You can’t have both. Imbuing school curricula with a reflexively patriotic and hagiographic view of this country’s history isn’t accurate. But neither is the view put forth by the 1619 Project, which has itself been adopted by various schools and received no analogous criticism by the Forbes.com author.

Critical thinking has to cut both ways—through all the political posturing, not just the posturing of the side you don’t agree with. The reason the author cited above is correct about “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons” being incompatible with critical thinking is because such an approach doesn’t leave room for people to learn to debate the spin being put on history and learning. However, that same logic has to be applied universally.

My evidence for how well (or poorly, in this case) we’re teaching this skill comes from my experience as an educator. In several of my classes, we look at a few controversial ideas as critical thinking test cases. For instance, when I ask students to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the idea of a meritocracy, they can usually do so with little trouble. They describe how the idea that people are compensated or rewarded based on their contributions or their competence makes sense.

Sometimes, they’ll give the example of grades—they get the grade they earned in a particular class. The grade reflects the effort and the degree of mastery. At least that’s the hope. They also can describe the ways in which the meritocracy falls short. They talk in detail about the barriers faced by members of underrepresented groups and how they don’t always have the same opportunities to succeed. All in all, they do a decent job of describing the advantages and disadvantages of the concept.

However, there are clear constraints to how widely this is applied. For example, I get very different responses when, instead of asking about a meritocracy, I ask students about microaggressions, colorblind racism, or white privilege. To be sure, they are able to speak comfortably and with depth about the advantages of each of these concepts. Microaggressions provide a language for people to talk about the small instances of racism that members of minority groups face every day. Colorblind racism denies the true experiences of oppression and discrimination that minorities face. And white privilege is crucial to our collective understanding of inequality because it helps people recognize some of their unearned advantage and gives a way to have conversations about what that advantage means. All reasonable responses as far as I am concerned.

The evidence of our collective failure is on display when I ask them whether they can criticize any of those topics. The vast majority of students I encounter, in the multiple times I have posed this question, are unable to come up with a clear answer or one that they don’t dismiss out loud before it has become a completed sentence. Sometimes they raise points like “White privilege might be viewed as denying the difficulties that some white people face,” but more often than not, they’re stumped. Apparently, they are only taught to criticize certain ideas. But this is unsustainable if for no other reason than the following: Reasonable people can and do think differently about these topics. When it comes to instruction, if critical thinking won out over facts, then now we’re doing neither well.

True critical thinking would involve a deeper understanding of these issues. For instance, what assumptions does a particular perspective make? Is that assumption controversial? Why might two people of reasonable minds come to different conclusions about it? What are the implications of pursuing any particular line of thinking? These questions should be applied universally and with vigor. We need a citizenry that understands that even—or especially—the most cherished ideas need to be held up to the light, examined, inspected, and challenged.

Changing the norms about how we think and talk about ideas is central to shifting how we think and talk about social problems more broadly. After all, the more time we spend talking about the relative merits of different ideas, the less focused we are on impugning the motives of others. If they took this lesson to heart, our political and cultural leaders could transform the dialogue on issues that really matter—whether it’s how to respond to a crisis or how to solve a seemingly intractable problem. And that shift would leave us all better off.

Ready for more?

News from Brown

Study offers neurological explanation for how brains bias partisans against new information.

People who share a political ideology have more similar ‘neural fingerprints’ of political words and process new information in similar ways, according to a new analysis led by Brown University researchers.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — What causes two people from opposing political parties to have strongly divergent interpretations of the same word, image or event?

Take the word “freedom,” for example, or a picture of the American flag, or even the 2020 U.S. presidential election. A person who identifies politically as liberal vs. one who identifies as conservative will likely have opposing interpretations when processing this information — and a new study helps to explain why.

While previous theories posited that political polarization results from selective consumption (and over-consumption) of news and social media, a team led by researchers at Brown University hypothesized that polarization may start even earlier.

Their new study , published in Science Advances, shows that individuals who share an ideology have more similar neural fingerprints of political words, experience greater neural synchrony when engaging with political content, and their brains sequentially segment new information into the same units of meaning. In this way, the researchers said, they show how polarization arises at the very point when the brain receives and processes new information.

“This research helps shed light on what happens in the brain that gives rise to political polarization,” said senior study author Oriel FeldmanHall, an associate professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences who is affiliated with the Carney Institute of Brain Science at Brown University. Daantje de Bruin, a graduate student in FeldmanHall's lab, led the research and conducted the data analysis.

Previous research from FeldmanHall’s lab showed that when watching a potentially polarizing video about hot-button issues like abortion, policing or immigration, the brain activity of people who identified as Democrat or Republican was similar to the brain activity of people in their respective parties.

That neurosynchrony, FeldmanHall explained, is considered evidence that the brains are processing the information in a similar way. For this new study, the researchers wanted to get an even more detailed picture of why and how the brains of people in the same political party are able to sync up.

To do that, the team used a range of methods that they say have never before been used in conjunction with each other. They conducted a series of experiments with a group of 44 participants, equally split among liberals and conservatives, who agreed to perform various cognitive tasks while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which measures the small changes in blood flow that occur with brain activity.

This research helps shed light on what happens in the brain that gives rise to political polarization.

Participants first completed a word reading task in which they were presented with single words (e.g., “immigration,” “abortion”) and asked to determine whether the word was political or non-political (indicated via a button press). Then the participants watched a series of videos, including a neutrally worded news clip on abortion and a heated 2016 vice presidential campaign debate on police brutality and immigration. During the experiments, the participants’ brain activity was measured using fMRI.

One of the methods the researchers used is called representation similarity analysis. When a person sees a simple, static image, like a word, the brain will represent that word with certain activity patterns.

“You can think of it as the brain representing the word by firing neurons in a certain way,” FeldmanHall said. “It’s almost like a fingerprint — a neural fingerprint that encodes the concept of that word within the brain.”

She added that since neural activity patterns store information about the world, how the brain represents this information is considered a metric for how that information is interpreted and used to steer behavior and attitudes.

In the study, the participants were exposed to words that are often politicized, like “abortion,” “immigration” and “gangs,” as well as more ambiguous words, like “freedom”.

The researchers found by analyzing the fMRI data that the neural fingerprint created by a liberal brain is more similar to other liberal brains than the neural fingerprint created by a conservative brain, and vice versa. This is important, FeldmanHall said, because it shows how the brains of partisans are processing information in a polarized way, even when it’s devoid of any political context.

Putting the polarized pieces together to create an ideological story

The researchers also used a newer methodology called neural segmentation to explore how the brains of people who identify with a particular party bias the interpretation of incoming information. Brains are constantly receiving visual and auditory input, FeldmanHall said, and the way the brain makes sense of that continuous barrage of information is to separate it into discrete chunks, or segments.

“It's like dividing a book of solid text into sentences, paragraphs and chapters,” she said.

The researchers found that the brains of Democrats separate incoming information in the same way, which then gives similar, partisan meanings to those pieces of information — but that the brains of Republicans segment the same information in a different way.

The researchers noted that individuals who shared an ideology had more similar neural representations of political words and experienced greater neural synchrony while watching the political videos, and segmented real-world information into the same meaningful units.

“The reason two liberal brains are synchronizing when watching a complicated video is due in part to the fact that each brain has neural fingerprints for political concepts or words that are very aligned,” FeldmanHall explained.

This explains why two opposing partisans can watch the same news segment and both believe that it was biased against their side — for each partisan, the words, images, sounds and concepts were represented in their brain in a different way (but similar to other partisans who share their ideology). The stream of information was also segmented out in a different format, telling a different ideological story.

Taken together, the researchers concluded, the findings show that political ideology is shaped by semantic representations of political concepts processed in an environment free of any polarizing agenda, and that these representations bias how real-world political information is construed into a polarized perspective.

“In this way, our study provided a mechanistic account for why political polarization arises,” FeldmanHall said.

The researchers are now focusing on how this explanation of polarization can be used to combat polarization.

“The problem of political polarization can’t be addressed on a superficial level,” FeldmanHall said. “Our work showed that these polarized beliefs are very entrenched, and go all the way down to the way people experience a political word. Understanding this will influence how researchers think about potential interventions.”

Additional contributors to this research included Pedro L. Rodríguez from the Center for Data Science at New York University and Jeroen M. van Baar from the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction.

Related news:

From the lab: brown chemical biologists impact health by focusing on the molecular level, new mass spectrometry technology from brown scientists could transform tiny sample analysis, advancing the quest for dark matter: new insights from the lux-zeplin experiment.

7.4 Campaigns and Voting

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Compare campaign methods for elections
Identify strategies campaign managers use to reach voters
Analyze the factors that typically affect a voter’s decision

Campaign managers know that to win an election, they must do two things: reach voters with their candidate’s information and get voters to show up at the polls. To accomplish these goals, candidates and their campaigns will often try to target those most likely to vote. Unfortunately, these voters change from election to election and sometimes from year to year. Primary and caucus voters are different from voters who vote only during presidential general elections. Some years see an increase in younger voters turning out to vote. Elections are unpredictable, and campaigns must adapt to be effective.

FUNDRAISING

Even with a carefully planned and orchestrated presidential run, early fundraising is vital for candidates. Money helps them win, and the ability to raise money identifies those who are viable. In fact, the more money a candidate raises, the more they will continue to raise. EMILY’s List , a political action group, was founded on this principle; its name is an acronym for “Early Money Is Like Yeast” (it makes the dough rise). This group helps progressive women candidates gain early campaign contributions, which in turn helps them get further donations ( Figure 7.17 ).

Early in the 2016 election season, several Republican candidates had fundraised well ahead of their opponents. Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz were the top fundraisers by July 2015, with Cruz reporting $14 million and Bush with $11 million in contributions. In comparison, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki (who both dropped out relatively early) each reported less than $1 million in contributions during the same period. Bush later reported over $100 million in contributions, while the other Republican candidates continued to report lower contributions. Media stories about Bush’s fundraising discussed his powerful financial networking, while coverage of the other candidates focused on their lack of money. Donald Trump, the eventual Republican nominee and president, showed a comparatively low fundraising amount in the primary phase as he enjoyed much free press coverage because of his notoriety. He also flirted with the idea of being an entirely self-funded candidate.

The Democratic field in 2020 was crowded, before winnowing down to a handful of contenders early in March, when most dropped out, leaving only Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joseph Biden. Those who dropped out were former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. The March cash-on-hand amounts of these candidates were respectively $11,179,565; $6,011,814; $640,210; $2,281,636; and $4,534,180. Sanders later dropped out of the race on April 8 with $16,176,082 left in his campaign coffers, leaving Biden to sail to the nomination. 106

COMPARING PRIMARY AND GENERAL CAMPAIGNS

Although candidates have the same goal for primary and general elections, which is to win, these elections are very different from each other and require a very different set of strategies. Primary elections are more difficult for the voter. There are more candidates vying to become their party’s nominee, and party identification is not a useful cue because each party has many candidates rather than just one. In the 2016 presidential election, Republican voters in the early primaries were presented with a number of options, including Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump , Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and more. (Huckabee, Christie, and Fiorina dropped out relatively early.) In 2020, Democrats had to decide between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders , Kamala Harris, Pete Buttegieg, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren. Voters must find more information about each candidate to decide which is closest to their preferred issue positions. Due to time limitations, voters may not research all the candidates. Nor will all the candidates get enough media or debate time to reach the voters. These issues make campaigning in a primary election difficult, so campaign managers tailor their strategy.

First, name recognition is extremely important. Voters are unlikely to cast a vote for an unknown. Some candidates, like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush in 2016 or Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in 2020, have held or are related to someone who held national office, but most candidates will be governors, senators, or local politicians who are less well-known nationally. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois and Bill Clinton was a governor from Arkansas prior to running for president. Voters across the country had little information about them, and both candidates needed media time to become known. While well-known candidates have longer records that can be attacked by the opposition, they also have an easier time raising campaign funds because their odds of winning are better. Newer candidates face the challenge of proving themselves during the short primary season and are more likely to lose. In 2016, both eventual party nominees had massive name recognition. Hillary Clinton enjoyed notoriety from having been First Lady, a U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state. Donald Trump had name recognition from being an iconic real estate tycoon with Trump buildings all over the world plus a reality TV star via shows like The Apprentice . In 2020, Democratic nominee Joe Biden had name recognition for having served in the U.S. Senate for many years and for serving two terms as vice president to President Barack Obama.

Second, visibility is crucial when a candidate is one in a long parade of faces. Given that voters will want to find quick, useful information about each, candidates will try to get the media’s attention and pick up momentum. Media attention is especially important for newer candidates. Most voters assume a candidate’s website and other campaign material will be skewed, showing only the most positive information. The media, on the other hand, are generally considered more reliable and unbiased than a candidate’s campaign materials, so voters turn to news networks and journalists to pick up information about the candidates’ histories and issue positions. Candidates are aware of voters’ preference for quick information and news and try to get interviews or news coverage for themselves. Candidates also benefit from news coverage that is longer and cheaper than campaign ads.

For all these reasons, campaign ads in primary elections rarely mention political parties and instead focus on issue positions or name recognition. Many of the best primary ads help the voters identify issue positions they have in common with the candidate. In 2008, for example, Hillary Clinton ran a holiday ad in which she was seen wrapping presents. Each present had a card with an issue position listed, such as “bring back the troops” or “universal pre-kindergarten.” In a similar, more humorous vein, Mike Huckabee gained name recognition and issue placement with his 2008 primary ad. The “HuckChuck” spot had Chuck Norris repeat Huckabee’s name several times while listing the candidate’s issue positions. Norris’s line, “Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business,” was one of many statements that repeatedly used Huckabee’s name, increasing voters’ recognition of it. While neither of these candidates won the nomination, the ads were viewed by millions and were successful as primary ads.

By the general election, each party has only one candidate, and campaign ads must accomplish a different goal with different voters. Because most party-affiliated voters will cast a ballot for their party’s candidate, the campaigns must try to reach the independent and undecided, as well as try to convince their party members to get out and vote. Some ads will focus on issue and policy positions, comparing the two main party candidates. Other ads will remind party loyalists why it is important to vote. President Lyndon B. Johnson used the infamous “Daisy Girl” ad, which cut from a little girl counting daisy petals to an atomic bomb being dropped, to explain why voters needed to turn out and vote for him. If the voters stayed home, Johnson implied, his opponent, Republican Barry Goldwater, might start an atomic war. The ad aired once as a paid ad on NBC before it was pulled, but the footage appeared on other news stations as newscasters discussed the controversy over it. 107 More recently, in the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden used the "What Happens Now" ad to extol Biden's background in managing crises in contrast to President Trump's mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic. 108

Part of the reason Johnson’s campaign ad worked is that more voters turn out for a general election than for other elections. These additional voters are often less ideological and more independent, making them harder to target but possible to win over. They are also less likely to complete a lot of research on the candidates, so campaigns often try to create emotion-based negative ads. While negative ads may decrease voter turnout by making voters more cynical about politics and the election, voters watch and remember them. 109

Another source of negative ads is from groups outside the campaigns. Sometimes, shadow campaigns , run by political action committees and other organizations without the coordination or guidance of candidates, also use negative ads to reach voters. Even before the Citizens United decision allowed corporations and interest groups to run ads supporting candidates, shadow campaigns existed. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization ran ads attacking John Kerry’s military service record, and MoveOn attacked George W. Bush’s decision to commit to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2020, super PACs poured more than $2.3 billion into supporting candidates. 110

Link to Learning

Want to know how much money federal candidates and PACs are raising? Visit the Campaign Finance Disclosure Portal at the Federal Election Commission website.

General campaigns also try to get voters to the polls in closely contested states. In 2004, realizing that it would be difficult to convince Ohio Democrats to vote Republican, George W. Bush’s campaign focused on getting the state’s Republican voters to the polls. The volunteers walked through precincts and knocked on Republican doors to raise interest in Bush and the election. Volunteers also called Republican and former Republican households to remind them when and where to vote. 111 The strategy worked, and it reminded future campaigns that an organized effort to get out the vote is still a viable way to win an election.

Campaigns have always been expensive. Also, they have sometimes been negative and nasty. The 1828 “ Coffin Handbill ” that John Quincy Adams ran, for instance, listed the names and circumstances of the executions his opponent Andrew Jackson had ordered ( Figure 7.18 ). This was in addition to gossip and verbal attacks against Jackson’s wife, who had accidentally committed bigamy when she married him without a proper divorce. Campaigns and candidates have not become more amicable in the years since then.

Once television became a fixture in homes, campaign advertising moved to the airwaves. Television allowed candidates to connect with the voters through video, allowing them to appeal directly to and connect emotionally with voters. While Adlai Stevenson and Dwight D. Eisenhower were the first to use television in their 1952 and 1956 campaigns, the ads were more like jingles with images. Stevenson’s “Let’s Not Forget the Farmer” ad had a catchy tune, but its animated images were not serious and contributed little to the message. The “Eisenhower Answers America” spots allowed Eisenhower to answer policy questions, but his answers were glib rather than helpful.

John Kennedy’s campaign was the first to use images to show voters that the candidate was the choice for everyone. His ad, “Kennedy,” combined the jingle “Kennedy for me” and photographs of a diverse population dealing with life in the United States.

The Museum of the Moving Image has collected presidential campaign ads from 1952 through today, including the “Kennedy for Me” spot mentioned above. Take a look and see how candidates have created ads to get the voters’ attention and votes over time.

Over time, however, ads became more negative and manipulative. In reaction, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, or McCain–Feingold, included a requirement that candidates stand by their ad and include a recorded statement within the ad stating that they approved the message. Although ads, especially those run by super PACs, continue to be negative, candidates can no longer dodge responsibility for them.

Candidates are also frequently using interviews on late night television to get messages out. Soft news, or infotainment, is a new type of news that combines entertainment and information. Shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight make the news humorous or satirical while helping viewers become more educated about the events around the nation and the world. 112 In 2008, Huckabee, Obama, and McCain visited popular programs like The Daily Show , The Colbert Report , and Late Night with Conan O’Brien to target informed voters in the under-45 age bracket. The candidates were able to show their funny sides and appear like average Americans, while talking a bit about their policy preferences. By fall of 2015, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had already interviewed most of the potential presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

The Internet has given candidates a new platform and a new way to target voters. In the 2000 election, campaigns moved online and created websites to distribute information. They also began using search engine results to target voters with ads. In 2004, Democratic candidate Howard Dean used the Internet to reach out to potential donors. Rather than host expensive dinners to raise funds, his campaign posted footage on his website of the candidate eating a turkey sandwich. The gimmick brought over $200,000 in campaign donations and reiterated Dean’s commitment to be a down-to-earth candidate.

Candidates also use social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to interact with supporters and get the attention of younger voters. While internet websites continue to proliferate in political campaigns, the advent of social media has taken the influence of internet information and communications to a new level. Candidates use social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to interact with supporters and get the attention of young voters. More importantly, social media has become an incredibly important avenue through which citizens talk to each other about politics, sharing positions, memes and jabs to their chosen networks of contacts and friends. The possibility of misinformation and bias in that setting led Facebook and Twitter to begin to monitor for untruths, in some cases deleting the social media accounts of violators, including President Trump.

VOTER DECISION MAKING

When citizens do vote, how do they make their decisions? The election environment is complex and most voters don’t have time to research everything about the candidates and issues. Yet they will need to make a fully rational assessment of the choices for an elected office. To meet this goal, they tend to take shortcuts.

One popular shortcut is simply to vote using party affiliation. Many political scientists consider party-line voting to be rational behavior because citizens register for parties based upon either position preference or socialization. Similarly, candidates align with parties based upon their issue positions. A Democrat who votes for a Democrat is very likely selecting the candidate closest to the voter's personal ideology. While party identification is a voting cue, it also makes for a logical decision.

Citizens also use party identification to make decisions via straight-ticket voting —choosing every Republican or Democratic Party member on the ballot. In some states, such as Texas or Michigan, selecting one box at the top of the ballot gives a single party all the votes on the ballot ( Figure 7.19 ). Straight-ticket voting does cause problems in states that include non-partisan positions on the ballot. In Michigan, for example, the top of the ballot (presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial and representative seats) will be partisan, and a straight-ticket vote will give a vote to all the candidates in the selected party. But the middle or bottom of the ballot includes seats for local offices or judicial seats, which are non-partisan. These offices would receive no vote, because the straight-ticket votes go only to partisan seats. In 2010, actors from the former political drama The West Wing came together to create an advertisement for Mary McCormack’s sister Bridget, who was running for a non-partisan seat on the Michigan Supreme Court. The ad reminded straight-ticket voters to cast a ballot for the court seats as well; otherwise, they would miss an important election. McCormack won the seat.

Straight-ticket voting does have the advantage of reducing ballot fatigue . Ballot fatigue occurs when someone votes only for the top or important ballot positions, such as president or governor, and stops voting rather than continue to the bottom of a long ballot. In 2012, for example, 70 percent of registered voters in Colorado cast a ballot for the presidential seat, yet only 54 percent voted yes or no on retaining Nathan B. Coats for the state supreme court. 113

Voters make decisions based upon candidates’ physical characteristics, such as attractiveness or facial features. 114 They may also vote based on gender or race, because they assume the elected official will make policy decisions based on a demographic shared with the voters. Candidates are very aware of voters’ focus on these non-political traits. In 2008, a sizable portion of the electorate wanted to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because they offered new demographics—either the first woman or the first Black president. Demographics hurt John McCain that year, because many people believed that at 71 he was too old to be president. 115 Hillary Clinton faced this situation again in 2016 as she became the first woman nominee from a major party. In essence, attractiveness can make a candidate appear more competent, which in turn can help him or her ultimately win. 116 The 2020 election had a bit of everything. While the two major party nominees were older White men, as was the last-standing Democrat other than Biden, Bernie Sanders, (older even than McCain was in 2008), there were many diverse candidates of different ages who ran for the Democratic nomination. Three women, all U.S. senators, ran serious and competitive campaigns: Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kamala Harris (who was tapped for vice president). Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) ran as well. In terms of race and ethnicity, Harris is of Black and South Asian descent, Senator Cory Booker is Black, former HUD Secretary Julián Castro is Latino, and Tulsi Gabbard and entrepreneur Andrew Yang are of Asian-American/Pacific Islander descent.

Aside from party identification and demographics, voters will also look at issues or the economy when making a decision. For some single-issue voters, a candidate’s stance on abortion rights will be a major factor, while other voters may look at the candidates’ beliefs on the Second Amendment and gun control. Single-issue voting may not require much more effort by the voter than simply using party identification; however, many voters are likely to seek out a candidate’s position on a multitude of issues before making a decision. They will use the information they find in several ways.

Retrospective voting occurs when the voter looks at the candidate’s past actions and the past economic climate and makes a decision only using these factors. This behavior may occur during economic downturns or after political scandals, when voters hold politicians accountable and do not wish to give the representative a second chance. Pocketbook voting occurs when voters look at their personal finances and circumstances to decide how to vote. Someone having a harder time finding employment or seeing investments suffer during a particular candidate or party’s control of government will vote for a different candidate or party than the incumbent. Prospective voting occurs when the voter applies information about a candidate’s past behavior to decide how the candidate will act in the future. For example, will the candidate’s voting record or actions help the economy and better prepare the candidate to be president during an economic downturn? The challenge of this voting method is that the voters must use a lot of information, which might be conflicting or unrelated, to make an educated guess about how the candidate will perform in the future. Voters do appear to rely on prospective and retrospective voting more often than on pocketbook voting.

In some cases, a voter may cast a ballot strategically. In these cases, a person may vote for a second- or third-choice candidate, either because the preferred candidate cannot win or in the hope of preventing another candidate from winning. This type of voting is likely to happen when there are multiple candidates for one position or multiple parties running for one seat. 117 In Florida and Oregon, for example, Green Party voters (who tend to be liberal) may choose to vote for a Democrat if the Democrat might otherwise lose to a Republican. Similarly, in Georgia, while a Libertarian may be the preferred candidate, the voter would rather have the Republican candidate win over the Democrat and will vote accordingly. 118

One other way voters make decisions is through incumbency. In essence, this is retrospective voting, but it requires little of the voter. In congressional and local elections, incumbents win reelection up to 90 percent of the time, a result called the incumbency advantage . What contributes to this advantage and often persuades competent challengers not to run? First, incumbents have name recognition and voting records. The media is more likely to interview them because they have advertised their name over several elections and have voted on legislation affecting the state or district. Incumbents also have won election before, which increases the odds that political action committees and interest groups will give them money; most interest groups will not give money to a candidate destined to lose.

Incumbents also have franking privileges, which allows them a limited amount of free mail to communicate with the voters in their district. While these mailings may not be sent in the days leading up to an election—sixty days for a senator and ninety days for a House member—congressional representatives are able to build a free relationship with voters through them. 119 Moreover, incumbents have existing campaign organizations, while challengers must build new organizations from the ground up. Lastly, incumbents have more money in their war chests than most challengers.

Another incumbent advantage is gerrymandering, the drawing of district lines to guarantee a desired electoral outcome. Every ten years, following the U.S. Census, the number of House of Representatives members allotted to each state is determined based on a state’s population. If a state gains or loses seats in the House, the state must redraw districts to ensure each district has an equal number of citizens. States may also choose to redraw these districts at other times and for other reasons. 120 If the district is drawn to ensure that it includes a majority of Democratic or Republican Party members within its boundaries, for instance, then candidates from those parties will have an advantage.

Gerrymandering helps local legislative candidates and members of the House of Representatives, who win reelection over 90 percent of the time. Senators and presidents do not benefit from gerrymandering because they are not running in a district. Presidents and senators win states, so they benefit only from war chests and name recognition. This is one reason why senators running in 2020, for example, won reelection only 84 percent of the time, while the U.S. House rate was 95 percent. 121

Since 1960, the American National Election Studies has been asking a random sample of voters a battery of questions about how they voted. The data are available at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: American Government 3e
Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/7-4-campaigns-and-voting

© Jul 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.