The Presidential election of 1876 had the highest percentage of the population turning out to vote in United States history, narrowly beating the pre-Civil War election of 1860. It was an election marked by a stark regional divide between the Republican North and the Democratic South (although New York voted Democratic). When there is stark regional differences voter turnout is generally higher, and during the pre-Civil War and immediate post-Civil War era of American politics, voter turnout was the highest it has ever been—around eighty percent.

In a dealignment election the population generally rejects the two major parties and favors an independent candidate. This occurs occasionally in American history, but has shown no signs of happening in recent years, even when the two major political parties fall out of touch with the issues that concern the common man.

Gerrymandering is often a difficult subject to tackle, and this question is not easy. That said, there are several hints that pave the way to knocking out many of the answers. For one, the federal legislature (Congress) does NOT redistrict the states. States are responsible for drawing their own district lines. The other easily determined answer is the one reading “. . .  to favor the election of US Senators within the state.” Remember that each state gets two US Senators (that distinction is important, because most states have STATE Senates as well), which are elected state-wide. Thus there is no such thing as redistricting for US Senators. Finally, states have nothing to do with reapportionment; reapportionment occurs after the conclusion of the Census which determines the number of people in each state, and thus the number of House members.

Now, the correct answer. Gerrymandering is the process by which state legislatures redistrict (that is redraw district lines) in ways that heavily favor the majority party. One of the ways, for example, is by taking a solid core of the opposing party and hacking off chunks of that district into the surrounding districts, thus diluting the voting power of the opposing party.

Lastly, remember that gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts who signed into law a highly partisan redistricting plan that heavily favored his party. One of the oddly-drawn districts vaguely resembled a salamander, leading a newspaper to name it the “Gerry-mander.” 

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.