🏠 Home Detailed notes Predicted Q3 notes All judgement grids

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

Democratic legitimacy = does this feature strengthen democratic legitimacy? Boosts participation = does this feature get more people involved? Money decisive = does money decide the outcome here? Parties strengthened = does this feature strengthen the parties? Framers' design intact = is this feature what the constitutional design intended? Reform realistic = could this feature realistically be changed? Significance = is this a feature the examiner will reward?

US elections and campaign finance - judgement grid +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Feature+   - Democratic legitimacy Boosts participation Money decisive Parties strengthened Framers' design intact Reform realistic Significance
Electoral
College
Primaries
Citizens
United
(2010)
Super PACs +
dark money
The 2024
cycle
Gerry-
mandering
How to use the grid in an essay. Pick the column the question is asking about (elections questions turn on Money decisive, Democratic legitimacy, or Reform realistic). Read down that column and group paragraphs by the cluster it produces. The 2024 row is the pivot: a record $15.9 billion cycle in which the better-funded candidate lost - use it to complicate, not to settle, the money question.

US elections and campaign finance - judgement grid +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Feature+   - Democratic legitimacy Boosts participation Money decisive Parties strengthened Framers' design intact Reform realistic Significance
Electoral
College		 -Can elect the popular-vote loser - and has, twice since 2000. -Safe states depress turnout - the campaign happens elsewhere. -Concentrates spending in swing states rather than deciding outcomes. -Rewards geography, not party strength. +The framers' machinery, still running as written. -Amendment is unreachable; the interstate compact is the workaround. +The first feature any elections essay must weigh.
Primaries +Voters, not party bosses, choose the candidates. +Millions take part in selection itself. +Long primary seasons reward early money and name recognition. -Stripped the parties of their core power. -An invention the framers never imagined. -No party will hand selection back to the smoke-filled room. +The participation case - and the polarisation suspect.
Citizens
United
(2010)		 -Made the loudest political speech purchasable. -Donor participation, not voter participation. +Created the Super PAC era - spending tripled. -Outside groups answer to donors, not parties. -A First Amendment reading the framers never faced. -Reform runs into the ruling itself - only the Court can unmake it. +The case every finance paragraph turns on.
Super PACs +
dark money		 -A hundred donors supply most of the outside money. -Narrows influence to the donor class. +The delivery mechanism of the post-2010 spending surge. -Parallel campaigns outside party control. -Independence is a legal fiction the design never contemplated. -Disclosure reform stalls in Congress cycle after cycle. +The donor-concentration statistic examiners reward.
The 2024
cycle		 -A record-cost election deepened the pay-to-play perception. +High-salience contest, mass small-donor fundraising on both sides. -The better-funded candidate lost - money buys reach, not victory. -Candidate-centred machines, party labels attached. -Nothing about $15.9 billion was designed. -No appetite from the winners. +The current evidence base - use it to complicate the money question.
Gerry-
mandering		 -The representatives choose their voters. -Safe seats depress general-election turnout. -Money matters less where the map decides. +State-level map control is a pure party power. -Districting abuse the framers did not police. -Commissions exist in some states; incumbents resist everywhere else. +The representation distortion every Congress essay can borrow.
What the filled grid shows. Read down the columns. Money decisive looks like the agree case until the 2024 row: Harris outraised Trump and lost - money buys reach, not victory. Democratic legitimacy is minus for the Electoral College, gerrymandered districts and dark money, plus for primaries opening candidate selection to voters. Reform realistic is minus almost everywhere - each distortion is defended by the people it elects. The judgement line: the system is democratic in participation and distorted in machinery, and the machinery is self-protecting.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me