The redistricting explanation argues that constituencies are increasingly becoming politically
[ Select ]
homogeneous
heterogeneous
. The sorting argument thinks that they are increaingly becoming politically
[ Select ]
homogeneous
heterogeneous
.

Question

The redistricting explanation argues that constituencies are increasingly becoming politically 
[ Select ]
homogeneous
heterogeneous
 . The sorting argument thinks that they are increaingly becoming politically 
[ Select ]
homogeneous
heterogeneous
 .

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presents a two-part fill-in-the-blank about redistricting and sorting arguments. It asks us to choose for each blank whether the appropriate descriptor is homogeneous or heterogeneous.

First statement: The redistricting explanation argues that constituencies are increasingly becoming politically [blank]. The two potential options are homogeneous or heterogeneous. If we consider common discussions of redistricting, the argument often centers on constituencies becoming more politically homogeneous, meaning communities within a district share similar political preferences or party leanings. This aligns with the idea that redrawing boundaries can group like-minded voters together, leading to more uniform voting behavior within districts.

Second statement: The sorting argument thinks that they are increasingly becoming politically [blank]. Here again, the contrast is between homogeneous (similar preferences) and heterogeneous (diverse preferences). The sorting argument typically describes how voters end up clustered with others who have similar characteristics and political views, resulting in districts that are more homogeneous in ideology. In this framing, the expectation is that sorting enhances similarity of political attitudes within districts rather than mixing diverse views.

Option 1 for the first blank: homogeneous. This resonates with the standard claim that redistricting can create politically uniform districts by concentrating like-minded voters, thereby producing districts with a narrow range of political opinions.

Option 2 for the second blank: homogeneous. Since sorting tends to group similar voters together, the implication is that districts become more politically uniform due to participants with similar preferences clustering, which fits the idea of increasing homogeneity rather than diversity.

To contrast, consider why heterogeneous would be incorrect in both blanks. If a text suggested heterogeneous for the redistricting explanation, it would imply districts are becoming more musically mixed in political views, which undermines typical arguments about packing and cracking that aim to increase within-district similarity. Likewise, describing sorting as leading to heterogeneous districts would imply increasing diversity of political preferences within districts, which contradicts the core intuition of sorting by socioeconomic, ideological, or party lines that produces more uniform districts.

In sum, the chosen pair—homogeneous for both blanks—reflects the well-known narratives in redistricting and sorting debates: districts are cast as becoming more politically uniform due to boundary drawing and social sorting mechanisms, rather than increasingly diverse within-district compositions.

2261 PS 1361 SEC1000 Week 9: Party System Polarization

The redistricting explanation argues that constituencies are increasingly becoming politically [ Select ] homogeneous heterogeneous . The sorting argument thinks that they are increaingly becoming politically [ Select ] homogeneous heterogeneous .

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Which of the following best describes a challenge in cross-ideological dialogue that Mounk and Guzmán name?

Why do polarized societies create structural openings for authoritarian leaders?

Affective polarization refers to

Dassonneville and Çakır's (2021) conclusion about polarization and turnout is that when polarization increases, centrist voters will be [ Select ] demobilized mobilized , while extreme voters will be [ Select ] demobilized mobilized by parties with extreme positions.

Dassonneville and Çakır (2021) find a [choice] relationship between levels of polarization and the extent to which electorates are partisan. (hint: read p. 15)

Political parties play a role in increasing polarization through:

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单