Ashford 3: – Week 2 – Discussion 2
Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Reference the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.
Meet Your Rep
The Constitution states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…” (Art. I, Sec. 2). Contrast this with the original constitutional language for the other house of Congress, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years…” (Art. I, Sec. 3). The phrase “chosen by the Legislature” was changed to “elected by the people” by the 17th Amendment, but not until 1912. In other words, from the beginning the House of Representatives was intended to be exactly what its name suggests –representative of the people. (Note that in 2010 the Tea Party, and some Republican politicians, called for repeal of the 17th Amendment, eliminating the popular vote for Senators. While most Republican politicians have backed away from that view, many Tea Party chapters continue to demand its repeal.)
Textbook models suggest how members of the House of Representatives may fulfill their constitutional duty to “represent” – the delegate model, the trustee model, the oversight model, and the service model. A weakness of these models is that they ignore the pervasive influence of interest groups, partisanship, and political money (campaign contributions) on the behavior of congressional reps. To what extent do these factors interfere with effective representation?
Before writing your initial post, review the assigned resources. To easily access the resources from the Ashford University Library, please see the table located in the Course Materials section.
After researching your representative by using the assigned resources, identify one important issue directly related to your rep’s committee or subcommittee work in Congress. Summarize your representative’s position on this focus issue as described on his or her website or illustrated by legislation sponsored by your rep. Be concrete and specific. Avoid vague generalities like “my representative is for jobs” or “my Congressman is for national security.”
With respect to this focus issue, evaluate your representative’s performance as a representative of the people in your legislative district. Justify your assessment from two perspectives: How well does your rep’s position on that issue reflect your district’s likely preferences or broad interests on the issue? Support your inferences about the district with fact-based evidence – not just your opinion about the district or your rep’s position on the focus issue. Demonstrate how your rep does or does not reflect his or her constituency on this issue. Consider your rep’s committee memberships and seniority. Discuss fact-based evidence about how interest groups, political party loyalty, or campaign money may influence your representative. Can these influences weaken his or her effectiveness as a true “representative” of the district? Consider whether the district is considered a “safe” seat or a competitive district. Put on your critical thinking cap to respond to this aspect of the question.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Your initial must be at least 200-250 words. Support your position with APA citations to two or more of the assigned resources required for this discussion. Please be sure that you demonstrate understanding of these resources, integrate them into your argument, and cite them properly.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates’ initial posts. Your peer responses each must be at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your peer’s post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with your peer’s while explaining or justifying your position).