American Government Critiques: Readings Analysis and Questions

This document provides a critique of three readings assigned in an American Government course. The first reading is Edmund Burke's "Speech to the Electors at Bristol," which is summarized, and its historical context is discussed. The second reading, by Jeff Davis, critiques the budget reconciliation process in the Senate, with a focus on statistical and anecdotal evidence. The critique points out the lack of ethnographic evidence. The third reading, by Grofman and Feierherd, discusses gerrymandering, focusing on the "Gill V. Whitford" case and districting procedures in other countries, highlighting some missing facts and statistics. Each reading is summarized, followed by a critical analysis of its shortcomings, and concluding with questions raised by the readings.

Running head: AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
(1) Burke, “Speech to the Electors at Bristol”
This article is circulating the speech given by Edmund Burke, when he was elected in House of
Commons, in the year 1765, and the speech that is rendered by him was satirical and depicted
realism about his services, which is not confined only in Bristol but his membership, is related to
the whole Parliament (Press-pubs.uchicago.edu 2020). In the year 1774, Lord Verney told that
due to some financial difficulties he could re-nominate Burke. Although, after the public poll
which began in Bristol and took many days, he was again selected and the two most important
merchant of the cities Joseph Harford and Richard Champion even nominated Burke for two
important seats in Bristol. This is historical significance of the speech, which leads to the speech
of Edmund Burke, where he proclaims to serve the people, and the betterment of people, and not
work on behalf of the constitution. In the 6th stanza of the paper it was well illustrated by the
Edmund Burke, that speaking his opinion, is the basic right of all men which should be taken
into consideration by the Government, and that their authoritative attitude hampers the base of
Government principle, that is serving the common people interests. The total speech has been
provided in a structured manner, but providing the history about the election and the conflicts,
which were held due4 to his election, was not portrayed, which makes the reading unclear.
Questions
 Did Edmund Burke take his position in the House of Commons, or withdrawal occurred
from the side of Edmund Burke?
 Did the members take his speech in a positive manner?
2) Davis, “The Rule that Broke the Senate,” Politico
This article is the personal proclamation of Jeff Davis, who is a fellow member in Eno Center for
transportation. Therefore, this article is not generated from the Eno Center of Transportation
directly (ALBERTA et al.,2020). According to the opinion of Jeff Davis, reconciliation
directives are not entirely followed by the Government while passing budget bills, it was also
stated that 2018, saw some big spending cuts from both House and Senate, approximately by
$200 billion and $1.5 trillion the way budget reconciliation was implemented it was never
applied. It is stated that according to Congress Draft the 1974 act, reconciliation only dealt with
legislative decisions. The lacking part of the article was that he only used statistical and
anecdotal evidence, but the inclusion of ethnographic evidence was necessary. The facts was
well presented, but there is no reliability of anecdotal evidence.
Questions
 What is the reliability of the statistics provided by Jeff Davis?
 Is anecdotal evidence relevant for making suggestions in explaining budget of
Parliament?
3) Grofman and Feierherd (2017) “The U.S. Could be Free of Gerrymandering. Here’s
How Other Countries Do Redistricting,” Monkey Cage
This article is presented with the topic “Gerrymandering”, and the most anticipated case of “Gill
V, Whitford”, was mainly focused due to the discrimination done to racial groups in voting
categories. The topic has been well presented in front of the Supreme Court, but they denied any
steps or challenges created that can be represented as “Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymander”.
It has also been that the districting procedures are quite different in other countries, which is well

2
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
presented, but the facts and statistics are considerably missing. On the other hand, the emphasis
on academic experts gives a vague understanding about the gerrymandering case occurred in
racial groups (washingtonpost.com 2020). The inclusion of scholars who has studied about
politics should have been referred to while exploring this topic, as well the racial manipulation
in legislation were also nit explored, which is a main flaw of the article
Questions
Is United States free of racial groups gerrymandering?
Why the article did not point out the Gerrymandering in case of racial groups in US?
References
ALBERTA, T., Mahoney, B., Gerstein, J. and Touré, M., 2020. The Rule That Broke The Senate.
[online] POLITICO Magazine. Available at:
<https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-
congress-215706> [Accessed 9 April 2020].
Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. 2020. Representation: Edmund Burke, Speech To The Electors Of
Bristol. [online] Available at:
<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html> [Accessed 9 April 2020].
washingtonpost.com 2020. [online] Available at:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/07/the-supreme-court-will-
soon-consider-gerrymandering-heres-how-changes-in-redistricting-could-reduce-it/> [Accessed
9 April 2020].