Answer No. 20

Here's the first best answer I received for Question #20:

Question No. 20 was:
What was Putin's primary public explanation for favoring the elimination of single member districts in Duma elections?

What did Putin's opponents suggest was the actual motivation for the electoral law reform?

The response:

The elimination of single member districts in the Duma was proposed to be replaced with proportion. Proportion would be determined by the number of votes each party won on the national scale.

Putin's primary public explanation in favoring the change was that minority parties and small populated regions would be given more importance. He also claimed that public unity in the war on terror would be strengthened.

Putin's opponents, however, suggest that the true motivation was to eliminate the minor party and minority people elected in the districts that were the only ones to stand up against the government. Critics see the change as a method eliminate all opposition and to consolidate the country under United Russia, the dominate party.

---

This is a two-point question.

There are three acceptable answers for the first part of the item (one point). Putin argued that eliminating single member districts would
• make parties more responsible for selecting candidates and improve the quality of legislators
• make parties more accountable for their actions in the Duma
• reduce the number of often-corrupt local political bosses in the Duma

There are three acceptable answers for the second part of the FRQ (one point). Putin's opponents charged that
• the changes would only guarantee United Russia's dominance of the legislature, since it and the (much less popular) descendant of the Communist party were the only two nationally-organized parties
• the changes would reduce the independence of legislators who would be responsible to party bosses
• would eliminate the representative nature of the Duma, since constituencies would have no voice in choosing legislators

---

The definition in the first paragraph of this answer is not necessary, but it probably helped the author get started. However, "proportion" is not an accurate label for the concept. In the context of the question and the pressures of test taking, it's understandable. But in a more crucial part of the answer, it might create enough ambiguity to reduce the score of the answer. "Proportional elections" or "proportional representation" are more accurate labels for this idea.

The explanations offered in the second paragraph illustrate the dangers of applying textbook generalizations to specific cases. Proportional elections do, in some cases, offer greater representation to minority parties. That would certainly be the case in the UK, where the Liberal Democrats would have several times as many MPs than they do now if Parliamentary elections were proportional. However, that was not an argument used by Putin. Remember, that before the reforms, half the Duma was elected proportionally.

Eliminating single member districts would not give "more importance" to "small populated regions." In fact, areas of low population might well lose representation without single member constituencies.

The argument that the changes would strengthen "public unity in the war on terror" might have been made, but I don't recall that it was. (If there's documentation for that claim being made by Putin, I'll change my evaluation here.

The opponents' arguments described in the third paragraph fit perfectly into the first of the three responses identified in the rubric.

So, this answer earns one point (and a pair of pencils).

---