Question No. 20 (15 April 2009)

You can submit an answer to this practice question using the "Questions" e-mail link at the What You Need to Know web site. (Look in the lower, right-hand section of that page.)

If you submit the earliest best answer, I'll post your answer (without your name) and a critique here a week after the question was posted. It will be in the "Comments" section for that question.

Here's Question No. 20:

The judicial system in Mexico is slowly undergoing a radical change.

a. What are two characteristics of the traditional inquisitorial legal system? (2 points)

b. What are two advantages often cited for the adversarial system to which Mexico is changing? (2 points)

(See p. 130 in What You Need to Know and Mexico adopts U.S.-style trials in the update section of the book's web site.)

---

Question No. 13 (2 April 2009)

I'll post a sample FRQ here about comparative government and politics almost every week day until May 1. They're for practice, since that one of the best ways of preparing for the exam.

You can subscribe to these questions using the RSS feed (the little orange icon in the address bar), and you'll see them in your news reader when I post them.

You can submit an answer using the "Questions" e-mail link at the What You Need to Know web site. (Look in the lower, right-hand section of that page.)

If you submit the earliest best answer, I'll post your answer (without your name) and a critique here a week after the question was posted. It will be in the "Comments" section for that question.

No prizes this year. But, I'll add your school's web address to the list of "Worthwhile Links" on the left side of the blog, IF you send it to me.

---

Here's Question No.: 13

In 2005, constitutional changes in Russia eliminated single-member districts in elections for the State Duma.
A. What was one of Putin's arguments that this change would strengthen political parties in Russia? (1 point)
B. What was an argument put forward by Putin's critics and opponents that a proportionally-elected legislature would only solidify Putin's hold on political power? (1 point)
C. What was another constitutional change in 2005 that supported Putin's state goal of strengthening parties? (1 point)
D. What was a constitutional change in 2005 that supported the arguments of Putin's opponents about solidifying Putin's power? (1 point)

(See pages 69-70 in What You Need to Know.)

---

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.

Question #2 (4 March)

Each weekday between now and May 1, I'll post a question about comparative government and politics.

You submit an answer to the "Questions" e-mail link at the What You Need to Know web site.

[That's http://apcomparativegov.com in case the link doesn't work for you.]

If you submit the earliest best answer, I'll publish your answer here a week after the question was posted.

And you'll win a pair of What You Need to Know number two pencils to help you fill in the exam's multiple choice answer sheet. One of the pencils will have all the multiple choice answers on it and the other will display King Arthur's memorable line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "You don't vote for kings!"

(You can also win a pair of WYNTK pencils by posing a question that gets used here.)

---

Here's Question No. 2:
How did the current Russian constitution get approved?

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

---