What political parties do, and how the two-party system grew

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to E on votes and electors in Presidential elections (the numbers are the official tallies of the American Presidency Project; card D is partly in our words; card E is made up). Card A, "The elections of 1860 and 1892". 1860 (electoral votes, popular vote): Abraham Lincoln (Republican) 180, 39.8 percent. John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic) 72, 18.2 percent. John Bell (Constitutional Union) 39, 12.6 percent. Stephen Douglas (Democratic) 12, 29.4 percent. Breckinridge won the electors of 11 states in the South and nearby. Douglas led in one state, Missouri, with 9 electors, and shared New Jersey, getting 3 of its 7. 1892: Grover Cleveland (Democratic) 277, 46.0 percent. Benjamin Harrison (Republican) 145, 43.0 percent. James Weaver (Populist) 22, 8.5 percent. Weaver won all the electors of Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Nevada, and one each in North Dakota and Oregon. Card B, "The elections of 1912 and 1924". 1912: Woodrow Wilson (Democratic) 435, 41.8 percent. Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) 88, 27.4 percent. William Howard Taft (Republican) 8, 23.2 percent. Eugene Debs (Socialist) 0, 6.0 percent. Roosevelt's 88 electors came from California (11 of 13), Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Washington. Taft won Utah and Vermont. 1924: Calvin Coolidge (Republican) 382, 54.0 percent. John Davis (Democratic) 136, 28.8 percent. Robert La Follette (Progressive) 13, 16.6 percent; his 13 electors were all from Wisconsin. Card C, "The election of 2000". 2000: George W. Bush (Republican) 271 electoral votes, 47.9 percent. Al Gore (Democratic) 266, 48.4 percent. Ralph Nader (Green) 0, 2.7 percent. Gore's total is 266 because one elector from the District of Columbia did not vote. 270 are needed to win. Florida (25 electors): Bush 2,912,790, Gore 2,912,253, Nader 97,488. New Hampshire (4 electors): Bush 273,559, Gore 266,348, Nader 22,198. Card D, "Two elections with strong independent candidates, and a count". 1992: Clinton 43.0 percent, 370 electoral votes; Bush 37.4 percent, 168; Ross Perot (independent) 18.9 percent, 0. In our words: Perot's voters were spread across the states, and he led in none. Card E, "Claims (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Claim X: Ralph Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. Claim Y: Ross Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. A writer says third-party candidates win electors when their voters are concentrated in a few states.

2. 1.

   In 1860 Douglas won 29.4 percent and 12 electors; Breckinridge 18.2 percent and 72. Kira reads card A. What best explains the gap?

   • Breckinridge's votes were spread evenly over the Union, so Douglas's concentrated support earned him far fewer electors
   • Douglas's votes were mostly Southern, where States have fewer electors, so his electoral count stayed small in 1860
   • Electors follow States won: Breckinridge took 11 States' electors, Douglas one State and part of another
   • A candidate needed 50 percent of a State's vote to win its electors, and Douglas seldom reached it in 1860
3. 2.

   Milo reads card B on 1912 and 1924. Which claim is best supported?

   • Roosevelt's 88 electors, 16.6 percent of the total, show that electors were awarded roughly in proportion to his votes
   • States, not shares, brought electors: Wilson won 435 with 41.8 percent, and La Follette's 16.6 percent won Wisconsin's 13
   • Taft's 8 electors show that Republicans had lost nearly their whole base in 1912, as his 23.2 percent suggests
   • Roosevelt's 27.4 percent brought 88 electors because his support was spread evenly over many States in 1912
4. 3.

   Ren reads card C on 2000. Gore needed 270 electors and had 266. Which statement about Florida and New Hampshire is best supported?

   • Each state alone would have changed the winner: Florida's 25 electors gave Gore 291, and New Hampshire's 4 gave him 270
   • Florida alone decided it, since its 537-vote margin was the smallest on the card and 4 electors could not overcome Bush's 271
   • Both states had to flip together, since Gore needed 270 and Florida's 25 alone would have given him just 266
   • Neither state decided it, because Nader's totals exceeded both margins, so no change can be assumed in either state
5. 4.

   Zee tests Claim X on card E, that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, against card C. What is the best verdict?

   • Unsupported: Nader won 0 electoral votes, so he could not have changed the outcome in any state or nationally
   • Unsupported: Nader won 2.7 percent nationally, too small a share to matter in any single state's result
   • Shown: Nader's 97,488 votes in Florida exceeded Bush's 537-vote margin, so Gore would have won Florida without him
   • Weakly supported: Nader's votes exceeded both margins, but the cards do not show how his voters would have voted
6. 5.

   Tala looks for evidence on Claim Y on card E, that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. What evidence would most test the claim?

   • How many States Perot led, which the card says was zero, compared with Weaver's and Roosevelt's totals in their own years
   • What Bush's advisers said about why he lost, since they watched the campaign closely and knew its weak points
   • How Perot's voters would have voted without him, and whether Clinton's leads in Perot's States were smaller than his totals
   • Whether Bush won more votes than Dole did in 1996, to compare the results of the two elections side by side
7. 6.

   A writer on card E says third-party candidates win electors when their voters are concentrated. Pia tests the claim against cards A to D. What is the verdict?

   • Supported: Weaver (22 electors), Roosevelt (88) and La Follette (13) won electors where they led States; Perot led none
   • Unsupported: Roosevelt's 88 electors on 27.4 percent show electors follow vote share, and the others are rare exceptions to it
   • Proved: Perot's larger share than Weaver's still brought no electors, so the shares themselves are irrelevant to electors
   • Unsupported: Weaver's 22 electors on 8.5 percent show that the Electoral College favors small parties over large third parties

8. Use this

   Cards A to D on ballot rules and the two-party system (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party (1997), the majority". Who made it: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for a Supreme Court that voted 6 to 3. When: April 28, 1997. For whom: the parties, the states and other courts. Why: to decide whether Minnesota could ban a candidate from appearing on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party. Excerpt 1: "States also have a strong interest in the stability of their political systems." Excerpt 2: "This interest does not permit a State to completely insulate the two-party system from minor parties' or independent candidates' competition and influence ... nor is it a paternalistic license for States to protect political parties from the consequences of their own internal disagreements." Excerpt 3: "That said, the States' interest permits them to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two-party system ... and that temper the destabilizing effects of party-splintering and excessive factionalism." Excerpt 4: "The New Party remains free to endorse whom it likes, to ally itself with others, to nominate candidates for office, and to spread its message to all who will listen." Card B, "Timmons, Justice Stevens dissenting". Who made it: Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When: April 28, 1997. For whom: the parties, the states and other courts. Why: to explain why the New Party's candidate should have stayed on the ballot. Excerpt 1: "The Court's conclusion that the Minnesota statute prohibiting multiple-party candidacies is constitutional rests on three dubious premises: (1) that the statute imposes only a minor burden on the Party's right to choose and to support the candidate of its choice; (2) that the statute significantly serves the State's asserted interests in avoiding ballot manipulation and factionalism; and (3) that, in any event, the interest in preserving the two-party system justifies the imposition of the burden at issue in this case." Excerpt 2: "But the right to be on the election ballot is precisely what separates a political party from any other interest group." Card C, "Timmons, Justice Souter dissenting". Who made it: Justice David Souter, writing separately. When: April 28, 1997. For whom: the parties, the states and other courts. Why: to explain what he thought was missing. Excerpt: "Surely the majority is right that States 'have a strong interest in the stability of their political systems,' ante, at __, that is, in preserving a political system capable of governing effectively. If it could be shown that the disappearance of the two-party system would undermine that interest, and that permitting fusion candidacies poses a substantial threat to the two-party scheme, there might well be a sufficient predicate for recognizing the constitutionality of the state action presented by this case." Card D, "Four made-up cases". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: State R bans every independent and minor-party candidate from its general-election ballot, saying this protects stability. Case 2: State S requires an independent candidate to collect signatures from 1 percent of its voters, which one independent in ten collects. Case 3: A student says Timmons shows the Constitution protects the two-party system. Case 4: A writer says ballot rules like Minnesota's explain why the United States has two main parties, so electoral rules like plurality voting are not needed to explain it.

9. 7.

   Esme answers Rehnquist's excerpt 4 on card A, that the New Party is free to endorse, using card B. What is the strongest objection?

   • Endorsing and campaigning are not a ballot line, which Stevens says separates a party from an interest group
   • Minnesota's ban applies to major parties as well as minor ones, which makes it unfair to the New Party
   • The ban stopped the New Party from nominating anyone, so Rehnquist's statement that it may nominate is simply wrong
   • States have no interest in the stability of their political systems, so the ban can serve no purpose
10. 8.

    Stevens calls the majority's premise of a minor burden dubious. Jun must answer Stevens with card A. What is the strongest reply?

    • The ban removes one party's second ballot line, not its right to nominate, endorse or campaign, so its burden is small
    • A State may protect the two-party system from competition by minor parties, since stability is a strong interest in a ballot law
    • Stevens concedes the burden is minor, so his dissent rests on his third premise about preserving the two-party system
    • Souter agreed with the majority on stability, so Stevens's dissent carries no force as a dissent from the Court
11. 9.

    Case 3 on card D says Timmons shows the Constitution protects the two-party system. Milo tests the claim against card A. What is the best verdict?

    • Unsupported: Timmons concerned one Minnesota ban, so it says nothing about the two-party system itself
    • Overstated: Timmons lets States make reasonable rules that may favor two parties, but not completely insulate the system
    • Supported: the Court called stability a strong State interest, which makes the two-party system a protected institution of government
    • Supported: Timmons upheld the ban, so the Court has decided that the two-party system must be preserved
12. 10.

    Case 4 on card D says ballot rules explain America's two main parties, so plurality voting is not needed. Noah tests it against cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

    • Weakly supported: Rehnquist says such rules may favor two parties in practice, but no card shows they cause the pattern
    • Unsupported: Souter says the two-party system is not at risk, so ballot rules play no part in keeping it
    • Shown: the Court itself said ballot rules favor the two-party system, so plurality voting adds nothing to the explanation
    • Supported: Stevens says the ban helps the major parties, so ballot rules must explain two-party dominance