Answer No. 2

Answer No. 2:

Here's the first best answer I've received for Question #2.

Question 2 was:
How did the current Russian constitution get approved?

Did that approval process contribute to the legitimacy of the constitution? Why or why not?.

Anonymous' answer is:

"According to my source, wikipedia, it says that the current constitution was drafted in a referendum on December 12 1993, after the previous president dissolved the last Constitution. in this referendum all the registered voters, or 54.8% of the population participated in the referendum. Of those,54.5% voted for adoption of the Constitution. So i believe that this makes it valid constitution, and therefore legitimate one because of the legal voting population it was approved by the majority of Russia."

---

This would be a two point question.

A point would be awarded for correctly identifying a referendum for the way the constitution was approved.

A point would be awarded for a factually correct and logical explanation of why this process would or would not contribute to the legitimacy of this new constitution.

Acceptable reasons for the process contributing to the legitimacy of the constitution would be:
• approval by a majority of voters
• demonstrable, widespread dissatisfaction with the old constitution or regime
• demonstrable, widespread approval of the leader who caused the constitution to be written

Acceptable reasons for the process to detract from the legitimacy of the constitution would be:
• lack of public or representative involvement in the constitution-writing process
• small margin of the approval vote by less than an overwhelming percentage of eligible voters
• demonstrable lack of public knowledge about the innovations in the new constitution
• rapidity of constitution writing and the lack of widespread public discussion about the proposed regime change

Some of those reasons require more explanation than others.

Anonymous' answer would earn both points.

However, there are some questionable things in the answer that might have caused problems.
• Wikipedia should not be cited as the only source. The reliability of Wikipedia is very questionable. That doesn't cause a problem with this answer because sources were not requested by the question. Most FRQs do not request the citation of sources and it's not necessary to do so unless you are asked.
• The constitution wasn't "drafted" by the referendum. The referendum approved a constitution that had been drafted (i.e. written).
• It's unclear to whom "previous president" refers. In another case, that reference might have been important.
• Validity is not necessarily identical to legitimacy.

These kinds of minor "errors" are common in the responses that exam readers see. Exams are written under the pressure of test taking and the clock. Most of the time mistakes like this are of no consequence. But you should, if you have the time, proofread your answers. Sometimes, carelessness can cost you points.

---

Anonymous has won two pairs of WYNTK pencils.