Category: Political Science

  • Burkina Faso ITU Position Paper

    The four sections are:

    1. Past and Current International Action ~2/3 page
    2. Countrys Position ~2/3 page
    3. Proposed Solutions ~1 1/4 page
    4. Questions to Consider ~1/2 page

    There are two topics so multiply this by two.

    But you can make it in total 5 pages instead of 6.

    You are speaking as the delegation of Burkina Faso so everything should be factual but biased in Burkina Faso’s perspective on these topics.

    ITU (1) and ITU (1) (1) are from the chair. BMUN THIMUN Position Paper Example (1) is a sample position paper from previous conferences.

    Times New Roman Font 12.

    Include MLA Citations in Bibliography. This does not count into the 5 pages.

    Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): ITU (1).pdf, ITU(1) (1).pdf, BMUN_THIMUN Position Paper Example (1).pdf

    Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

  • American Government 6 question – 3- paragraph each exam

    Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): EXAM1PS101PROFESSORSHEKARABISPRING2026.docx

    Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

  • Rough Draft

    Final Project Prompt: Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, argues that in a democracy, factions are

    unavoidable and that the Constitutional design safeguards against them. Choose a faction that has been

    criticized for wielding too much political influence. In your response, identify the stage(s) of the influence

    production process where the faction is accused of having too much power and explain the concern (for

    example, who is worried and why). Then, argue whether democratic institutions in the U.S. adequately

    protect against this faction’s undue influence. As evidence, identify at least one specific institution (e.g.,

    federalism, checks and balances, or a large republic) and evaluate how effectively it safeguards against

    factions. Next, identify a second way in which an institution (which could be the same as the first) may

    protect against factions. Finally, based on the evidence, state which perspective on organized interests

    influence best describes the chosen factions influence. Remember, Madison emphasizes that the concern

    is less the existence of factions than how well institutions guard against their excesses.

    Feel free to express your creativity as you answer this prompt. You may choose whatever medium (e.g.,

    an essay, a series of social media posts, a blog post, a podcast, an infographic, a game, a policy briefing, a

    poster, a creative writing piece, or a spoken word) you would like to make this argument. As you develop

    this project, consider your target audience. Help them understand your faction and its political influence.

    Files may be submitted using the following formats only: doc, docx, pdf, odt, tf, txt, xls, xlsx, ods, csv,

    ppt, pptx, odp, jpg, jpeg, png, gif, zip, mov, mp4, and mp3.

    The bullet points below represent the minimum guidelines you must fulfill to receive full credit on

    the final assignment. Refer to the final assignment rubric for detailed guidelines on how your grade

    will be determined. We will be monitoring for plagiarism.

    Word limit: 500-1000 words; Time limit: 3-8 minutes

    Introduction includes a position statement or argument that addresses the prompt

    o Describe your faction. Explain why people are concerned about its political influence and the

    relevant stage(s) of the influence production process.

    Evidence statements: identify and describe how at least 2 institutions should or do safeguard against

    factions unwieldy influence.

    Reference at least 3 readings from the course to support your statements. You may also use real-

    world examples or external sources as evidence, but you must include at least three course readings

    to support your statements. Clearly identify the readings (e.g., by the authors last name and the year

    and/or by the title of the reading).

    Conclusion Restates the argument in a new way and summarizes main points.

    Overall, the assignment should be logical and internally consistent with no contradictory or incorrect

    statements. The final product should be innovative, polished, and meticulously executed.

    If you are not submitting a written assignment, upload a script and a reference list to Canvas

    with your assignment to ensure that all aspects of the rubric are graded. Written assignments

    must include a reference list

    I am attaching the rubric and the three readings.

    Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): RosenstoneHansen.pdf, Truman1951Excerpts.pdf, LoweryBrasher_Excerpts Pt2.pdf, FinalRubric_100V_W26.pdf, FinalRubric_100V_W26.pdf

    Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

  • Pols 4660 Democracy and Democratization

    Answer the following journal questions. Dont need to put in any citations or anything just answer the questions using the pdfs and whatever else you might need. In your journal entry for this week, make sure that you highlight the following “journal props” as well any other materials you learned or gleaned from the lecture notes and readings. They are provided to you simply as “guidelines” to direct your focus on the subject matter. You should follow the journal “props” as indicated, then add on other materials gleaned from your assigned readings as well as the lecture. Please do not confine yourself, but you need to incorporate as much detail as possible to convince the instructor/reader that you have read and understood the materials for the week. If you have any questions, please let me know:

    1. Explain the development and history of the Cold War and its end in 1989-1991
    2. Explain the concept of bipolarity and the “ideological conflict” between the US and the Soviet Union 1945-1991
    3. What is unipolarity and how did it emerge unto the international system?
    4. What is the theoretical basis of Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History and the Last Man” (The Fukuyama thesis)?
    5. What is theoretical argument of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” (the Huntington thesis)?
    6. What was the enduring ramification of the Cold War for democracy and the “democratic peace” dividend?
    7. What is the traditional character of interstate relations between democracies and why do they not (generally) fight each other?

    Requirements: 7 questions

  • Moral Politics Weekly Response

    My professor has assigned me to do a paper on the chapters 10-11 of the Moral Politics book written by George Lakoff. I included pictures of exactly what is supposed to be in the paper.

    1. Summarize the Chapters
    2. Choose one concept from EACH chapter that’s found to be striking/powerful and explains why Lakoff believes it’s important to know.
    3. Provide and explain a personal example from your life, friends or family (aside from the ex in the text) and how it relates to whom. (1 relation per chapter)
    4. Relate any information from either chapter to a news article published in the last 6 months. Must summarize the article and explain information from Moral politics relates to the news article. I added which websites or sources that the article must come from. Include the URL of the article in the answer.
    5. In your opinion, what is the strongest evidence Lakoff provides in the chapters to support his argument. Are there any questions your left with? What (If anything) leaves you unconvinced in his argument? Make sure to provide at least ONE strength and ONE weakness.
  • Provide feedback on the below

    feedback should focus primarily on argument strength, but also can attend to issues of arrangement. Be sure to explicitly identify successful instance of claims, evidence, and warrants, as well as any instances where you note a weakness or deficiency in claims, evidence, or warrants. Note any instances of especially good or poor source quality, as well.

    Post feedback of at least 250 words as a reply to each assigned outline. (So, you’ll compose 500+ words in total.) Use paragraphs to organize your ideas; submitting a single long paragraph will result in a penalty.

    Requirements: as needed

  • Populism Under Constraint: Viktor Orbns 2016 Refugee Quota R…

    subject

    Populism Under Constraint: Viktor Orbns 2016 Refugee Quota Referendum and the Politics of Institutional Contestation in the European Union

    it is very important to consentrate on the research “puzzle”

    the main research question: How did Viktor Orbns government use the 2016 Hungarian referendum on EU refugee relocation quotas as a state-level policy instrument to contest supranational authority, and what does this reveal about the operation of populism in power within the European Union?

    Paper Overview

    Students must write a research paper analyzing a specific policy of a populist leadership in Europe or in the international arena (preferably from the last decade), based on the theoretical frameworks discussed in class.

    Writing this paper requires independent research. Students may use empirical material drawn from newspapers, online sources, or social media, including statements or positions of political parties, governments, international organizations, and NGOs.

    Students may also use course readings, academic books, and journal articles.

    The paper must cite at least 20 sources within the text, and all cited works must appear in the bibliography.

    Any citation style is acceptable, as long as sources are clearly identifiable.

    Final Paper Submission

    The paper must:

    • Discuss the expected characteristics of the selected populist leadership
    • Explain whether and how these characteristics are expressed in the chosen case
    • Trace the process and explain why the case developed as it did
    • Identify factors that influenced the outcome

    Regarding the policy, emphasis may be placed on:

    • How the policy is framed
    • The policy-making process
    • Decision-making
    • Implementation
    • Policy consequences

    The analysis must be as focused as possible and should analyze specific discourse or concrete procedures.

    General statements are insufficient; arguments must be tied to specific evidence.

    Recommended Structure of the Paper

    Introduction (approx. 10%)

    • Present the topic
    • Present the puzzle and rationale
    • Present the research question
    • Brief outline of the paper

    Background (approx. 10%)

    • Factual background on the selected actor
    • Explanation of why the policy is important
    • Relevant historical context

    Theoretical Framework (approx. 10%)

    • Explanation of the selected concepts/tools
    • Justification for their relevance

    Findings (approx. 50%)

    • Detailed description of the policy
    • Empirical evidence linking the actors actions to explanatory factors
    • Explanation of logic behind processes
    • Consideration of supporters, opponents, challenges, and constraints

    Discussion and Conclusion (approx. 20%)

    • Broader lessons from the case
    • Implications for related cases
    • Connection to course themes
    • Suggestions for future research

    SOURCES:

    Peer-Reviewed Academic Sources (Secondary Literature)

    1. Mudde, Cas. 2004. The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39(4): 541563.
    2. Stanley, Ben. 2008. The Thin Ideology of Populism. Journal of Political Ideologies 13(1): 95110.
    3. Mudde, Cas, and Cristbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2012. Populism and (Liberal) Democracy. American Political Science Review 106(2): 122.
    4. Mller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What Is Populism? Political Theory 44(4): 128.
    5. Pappas, Takis S. 2019. Populists in Power. Journal of Democracy 30(2): 7084.
    6. Enyedi, Zsolt. 2016. Paternalist Populism and Illiberal Elitism in Central Europe. Journal of Political Ideologies 21(1): 925.
    7. Verbeek, Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. 2017. Populism and Foreign Policy. The International Spectator 52(4): 112.
    8. Destradi, Sandra, and Johannes Plagemann. 2019. Populism and International Relations. Review of International Studies 45(5): 711730.
    9. Chryssogelos, Angelos. 2017. Populism in Foreign Policy. Politics 37(4): 384397.
    10. Batory, Agnes. 2016. Populists in Government? Hungarys System of National Cooperation. Democratization 23(2): 283303.
    11. Kornai, Jnos. 2015. Hungarys U-Turn. Journal of Democracy 26(3): 3448.
    12. Bogaards, Matthijs. 2018. De-democratization in Hungary. Democratization 25(8): 14811499.
    13. Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2020. Ethnopopulism and Democratic Backsliding in Central Europe. East European Politics 36(3): 318340.
    14. Huysmans, Jef. 2000. The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. Journal of Common Market Studies 38(5): 751777.
    15. Bourbeau, Philippe. 2011. The Securitization of Migration. International Political Sociology 5(1): 120.
    16. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2018. European Integration (Theory) in Times of Crisis. Journal of European Public Policy 25(7): 969989.
    17. Taggart, Paul, and Aleks Szczerbiak. 2018. Putting Brexit into Perspective. Journal of European Public Policy 25(8): 11941214.
    18. Krek, Pter, and Zsolt Enyedi. 2018. Orbns Laboratory of Illiberalism. Journal of Democracy 29(3): 3951.
    19. Enyedi, Zsolt. 2015. Plebeians, Citoyens and Aristocrats. Government and Opposition 50(2): 232252.
    20. Pirro, Andrea L.P., Taggart, Paul & van Kessel, Stijn. 2018. The Populist Politics of Euroscepticism in Times of Crisis. Politics 38(3): 378390.

    Primary Sources Speeches & Official Documents

    1. Orbn, Viktor. 2016. Speech on the Hungarian National Day, 15 March 2016. Prime Ministers Office.
    2. Orbn, Viktor. 2016. Speech at the 27th Blvnyos Summer Free University and Student Camp (Tusndfrd), July 23, 2016.
    3. Orbn, Viktor. 2016. Parliamentary address announcing the referendum on EU migrant quotas. Hungarian National Assembly.
    4. Orbn, Viktor. 2016. Statement following the referendum results, October 2, 2016. Prime Ministers Office.
    5. Government of Hungary. 2016. Official wording of the referendum question on EU mandatory relocation quotas.
  • Education and Democracy

    The instructions is in the pdf titled “05 theory and hypothesis.pdf” and i’m using the article from Jstor i atatched it as “why does democracy need education” however, if anything is not right please provide from your research too

    Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): Why does democracy need education.pdf, 05 theory and hypothesis.pdf

    Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

  • State Judicial Candidate Profile

    Judicial Candidate Profile Assignment Instructions / Rubric

    This assignment should be an interesting one for you guys! There are currently ten candidates running statewide election campaigns for the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals this year. There are a few races with primary elections in March, and all of them have a general election this November! Your task for this assignment is to write up a short paper nothing formal, just more than two paragraphs on one of the candidates of your choice! Pick one of the ten and then take a look at the following resources:

    • 2026 JUDICIAL CANDIDATES POSSIBILITIES FOR ASSIGNMENT.docx
    • https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/upcoming-election
    • https://www.ncsbe.gov/campaign-finance
    • https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/your-voter-record

    Your paper should include a brief sketch of the candidate including these specific things:

    • Their educational background (college and law school attended at a minimum);
    • Their prior legal experience if any, and their prior judicial experience, if any;
    • A statement of their judicial philosophy as they express it;
    • A news story (traditional news media in other words not social media comments by individual people) about the candidate; &
    • Some case or legal controversy that they have been involved in that you can find mentioned online (either as a judge or a lawyer, or even a legislator).
    • I have included a link to the State Campaign Finance website, but it may be the case that there are not reports yet for some of the candidates but if there are, feel free to look around there and if there is anything you find interesting feel free to add that as well (this is sort of a bonus!).

    Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): 2026 JUDICIAL CANDIDATES POSSIBILITIES FOR ASSIGNMENT.docx

    Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

  • Discussion board

    162 Replies, 158 Unread

    Discussion Topic: Discussion Board #2: Federalism good idea/bad idea Discussion Board #2: Federalism good idea/bad idea

    Do you think the political system of federalism was a good or bad idea for the United States? Tell me why you feel this way. Write your thoughts here. You should write about 1 paragraph (75 words). You should also write replies to other people’s posts on the discussion board. Please be respectful of other people’s opinions. This is meant to be an interactive and lively discussion between students.

    Feb 20 8:07pm

    Reply from Alexandra Brashear

    I think that federalism was a good idea for the United States. The U.S. is one of the biggest countries in the world, it would be really hard to make majority of the people happy under one national government. Giving some power to the states makes it easier for the country to meet the needs of everyone, or try to at least. Although, state governments and the federal government sometimes disagree, which is bound to happen sometimes, federalism has been pretty useful in keeping our country united.

    Requirements: