This question is a little tricky. Students often struggle with the difference between redistricting and reapportionment, but the easiest way to keep them apart is to look at the words themselves: redistricting and reapportionment.

Redistricting is the often-controversial process by which state legislatures redraw the district lines within their states—not to be confused with gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a type of redistricting—a politically charged/motivated redistricting. Theoretically speaking, however, redistricting COULD be completely unpartisan, it’s just unlikely.

Reapportionment, on the other hand, is far less controversial. Essentially, it’s the process by which the number of US House members of each state are determined in the wake of every decennial census. Keep in mind that the current number of House members is capped at 435, so the “net” gain is always zero. Do you see why that is? Let’s use an example by way of answer. Take almost any state in the Southeast—most of them have quickly growing populations—say, Georgia. Imagine that after the most recent census, it was determined that Georgia’s population grew by 1 million, while California’s shrank by the same. Further assume that 1 million (in either direction) is enough to shuffle a House member around. Taking those assumptions, then, it is likely that CA would lose a House member and GA would gain one at the conclusion of the census. However, since the TOTAL number of House members is capped at 435, it’s a net gain of zero (GA + 1, CA -1 = 0).

This question often tricks students, although it’s not facially confusing. A plurality means getting the highest percentage/number of the vote, not necessarily a majority. In other words, 20% could be a plurality; so could 45%; so could 5%. It just depends on the number of votes cast, and for whom.

A majority on the other hand MUST be greater than 50%. It doesn’t matter, for purposes of majority voting, if you received more votes than the proverbial “other guy.” The only thing that matters is getting greater than 50% of the vote.

This is a relatively straightforward question. First, remember what a coalition is. A “coalition” is essentially when a bunch of people join together to act in concert. Usually, coalitions refer to people who would otherwise not get along, but are held together by a particular idea or event. Here, clearly, the event/idea is the New Deal. Note how strange this coalition is: southern segregationists and northern African Americans; Catholics and Baptists; union members and farmers. All of these are natural enemies of one another, but the New Deal brought them together in support of FDR and his policies.

Not everyone was happy, of course, and the rest of the answers are in some way referencing the Republicans who disagreed with the New Deal—mainly upper-class Protestants and businesspeople.

As with name brands at the grocery store, name recognition is an important advantage for incumbents. They are already known, while the challenger must get his/her name out there to the general public.

Incumbents are congress people who are currently holding office and defending their seat from a prospective challenger.

This is a relatively tricky question. To begin with, it requires that you know what the franchise is—the right to vote. Assuming that you understand the meaning of the franchise, this question requires that you think very carefully about American political history. Most of you were likely tempted to select “true” as the correct answer—with good reason, as extending the franchise to all men, women, 18-year olds and (effectively) to the citizens of Washington, D.C. all required amendments. That said, (all) white men managed to get the franchise via natural extension rather than an amendment. In slightly more detail, recall that many colonies restricted the franchise to propertied, white, protestant men. By the time of the Jacksonian revolution (c.a. 1840’s), however, all white men had the right.

Hopefully you should have been able to narrow this question down to the two answers that begin with “15th”—the 15th Amendment extended the franchise to all men (not just to black men, although that was functionally what it did). Thus all of the other answers are incorrect.

Having narrowed the possible answers down to two, you have to recall which of the two acts really extended the franchise to all blacks. Hopefully you were tipped off by the fact that the law is called the “Voting Rights Act,” but regardless, that is the correct answer. The VRA of 1965 knocked down the last few pillars supporting the south’s restriction of the franchise to whites. Specifically, it covered all states who had restrictions such as literacy or understanding tests, froze all election laws in place (in the states covered) and required any changes to be cleared by the Federal government, and allowed for federal registrars to register those who were not registered.

**N.B.: This is a truncated discussion of the VRA—there are entire courses relegated to its implementation and the results.

While this may sound counterintuitive, extending the franchise to 18-year olds has in fact decreased measured voter turnout in terms of a percentage. In other words—and I’m completely making these numbers up—pretend that voter turnout was  in 1950s. Further pretend that in 1971, when the 26th Amendment passed, voter turnout dropped to . What could possibly be the reason for this? Well, essentially, it’s just a problem of simple mathematics. If you increase the denominator of a fraction by a drastic amount (millions) but you only add nominal amounts to the numerator, you’re going to have a percentage decrease. This is exactly what happens after the passage of the 26th Amendment. The number of eligible voters increased dramatically, while the number of people actually voting went up far less (young people don’t tend to vote very often). 

This question also involves mathematics—whichever of these has the smallest denominator will have a larger percentage, and vice versa. Thus, we can safely eliminate “Voting Age Population/Population” from the answers; by definition, “population” is a much LARGER denominator than “voting age population,” thus the percentage yield from “population” must be SMALLER than the percentage yield from “voting age population.”

That leaves us with the other two (viable) answers—Voting Age Population yielding a smaller turnout percentage than Voting Eligible Population, or vice versa. In order to apply the principles we just discussed above (larger denominator = smaller percentage), we have to determine which of these encompasses a greater amount—eligibility or age.

Voting Age Population (VAP) encompasses EVERYONE that is 18 and up. Everyone. In other words, VAP includes in its parameters people who can’t even vote (e.g. convicted felons, illegal aliens, etc). Voting Eligible Population (VEP), however, encompasses a much smaller group—only those who are both of age and legally able to vote. In other words, in order to be counted among VEP you must be at least 18, and not restricted from voting.

Thus, applying the principles we discussed above, we can see that VEP is less than VAP, thus when VAP is the denominator (and the numerator remains constant) it yields a smaller turnout percentage than when VEP is the denominator.

The voter described in this problem is most likely to vote for a Republican candidate. That is not to say that he would never vote for a Democrat (or any of the other listed parties), it’s simply asking you to pick the most likely/best answer. Because the voter in question is white, male, and a college graduate, he is more likely than not going to vote for the Republican Party. In other words, race, gender, and education all tend to be reliable indicators of political choice (i.e. whites tend to be more republican than minorities, men more than women, and college graduates more so than, say, a PhD  who, interestingly enough, tend to be more liberal)).