AP US Government and Politics
Who represents more people, a US Senator from Wyoming or a Los Angeles County Supervisor?
Happy Friday! How accurate was your prediction?
Did you know that today is friday?!?!?!?! What most surprised you about this data?
What is the BIG PICTURE this data paints?
What emoji would best sum up the meaning of this data?
Explain the connection between this data and federalism. (PRo tip: federalism is that thing you studied at the beginning of the year.)
While Los Angeles County Supervisors represent more people than a Wyoming Senator, (or, in fact than Senators from Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont), explain whether political power is based solely on the number of people a politician represents?
What are some powers that county commissioners (supervisors) have in your county?
What are some powers U.S. Senators have that L.A. County Supervisors (or most supervisors, in general) don't?
Explain whether you would rather be a U.S. Senator from Wyoming or an L.A. County Supervisor:
Are there any politicians in your state who represent more people than an L.A. County Supervisor?
What questions do you have about this data?
If you could hold any position at any level of government in America, explain what position you would want:
Explain whether you think a politician representing a small number of people would be more likely to be a trustee than someone representing more people.
Explain what you believe politicians should do for the people that voted against them: (Do they represent them too? Should they follow their will?)
The United States gives all people equal representation through the House of Representatives (each district is roughly equal), and all states equal representation through the Senate (two Senators per state). Since democracy means government by the people, where all people are equal, is it democratic to give each state equal representation if that means that smaller states (and all the people in them) have more representation than larger states?
Anti-Federalists were concerned that it would be hard for the people in a large country to control a national government. They argued for government to be kept close to the people. In Brutus 1, the Anti-Federalist Robert Yates writes, “History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.” Based on what you know about American politics and history explain whether the anti-federalist were right that large territories (countries) are the most tyrannical that ever existed?
Did I mention that it’s friday? Explain whether you believe a representative government can function successfully in a country the size (>318,000,000 people) of the United States: