1.) Some have argued that the United States resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy.  More specifically, perhaps either an aristocracy or a plutocracy.  Using the definitions for these terms, explain whether you agree or disagree with the idea that the United States more resembles an oligarchy and also discuss how "healthy" a democracy you think United States is based on the definitions of democracy.   

2.) We examined 4 major political ideologies.  Please choose two of these and discuss what you think are some of the pros and cons of each of them.  Also, is there one ideology you think is "better" or stronger than the others?

part 2:
- 200 words

1.) The US Constitution was passed in 1787.  As discussed in the module, the Constitution is an old and rather brief document.  It was also written primarily by white, land-owning men.  How do you think this is relevant in today's society and what impact do you think this has on the Constitution.  Consider in your answer, some of the compromises that were reached in writing the new constitution.  Please discuss 2 or 3 things that come to mind and be sure to explain your answers.  

2.) One of the often cited problems with the Electoral College is that someone can win the presidency yet not receive the most number of votes throughout the country.  This happened in 2016 when President Trump received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.  However, President Trump won more states than Clinton did (he won 30 states, she won 20).  This leads some to argue that the Electoral College can actually be MORE fair than a straight popular vote, because it forces a candidate to do well throughout the country.  Those same people argue that the Electoral College protects small states and forces candidates to do well in those states as well.  Do you agree with these arguments and do you believe Trump winning the presidential election was fair or unfair considering he did not receive the most number of votes?

part 3
- 450 words

1.)  As we have studied, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people (the masses) from directly electing the president.  The thought was that the people were not capable of making decisions that important and that they might make some bad decisions due to their lack of knowledge and education.  Is there any legitimacy to the idea that the masses should not have too much political power?  Should there be any limits to who can vote, or in which elections the masses can vote in?  In your answer, consider whether it is dangerous or not to allow people who have no knowledge about the political system to decide who should be the ones in charge.  You should also make references to the philosophers we studied earlier and what they might say about these questions.  Make sure to explain your answer. 

2.)  Many would argue that the Founding Fathers clearly designed Congress to have a lot of power and were obviously concerned about the president gaining too much power.  Showing an understanding of articles I and II, in what ways could Congress be seen as having more power than the President (make specific references to both articles). Also, do you believe that Congress should have more power over our government than the president and based on what you know about US government, do you think that Congress ACTUALLY has more power than the president?  

3.)The Constitution is a document that can be changed, but it is very difficult to change.  Please explain the overall process for changing the Constitution and how this process makes it difficult to change the document.  Additionally, please discuss WHY the Founding Fathers might have wanted it to be difficult to change the Constitution and how this difficulty might impact our society today.

You do not need to write this is an essay-style format.  You can simply number each response #1-3.