Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

133949-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, used a communication strategy in which he labeled his opponents and naysayers with negative nicknames. Throughout his campaign he labeled opponents as "Crazy Bernie," "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Low Energy Jeb" and "Goofy Elizabeth Warren." Donald Trump repeated these

In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, used a communication strategy in which he labeled his opponents and naysayers with negative nicknames. Throughout his campaign he labeled opponents as "Crazy Bernie," "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Low Energy Jeb" and "Goofy Elizabeth Warren." Donald Trump repeated these nicknames at rallies and over his social media platforms. Donald Trump was elected President in November 2016 and took office the following January. Did these nicknames that Donald Trump used resonate with voters? And if so, who did they resonate with the most? In order to research these questions, the U.S. eligible voting population was given the opportunity to complete a survey asking them a series of questions about choosing the word that best describes these politicians that Trump has labeled. They were also asked questions regarding what political party they are registered to and who they voted for in the 2016 Presidential Election. Results indicated that Trump voting respondents and registered Republican respondents felt the words Donald Trump used to label his opponents described those politicians best, in comparison to other groups and demographics. These findings demonstrate that the nicknames Donald Trump used during his campaign did resonate with certain groups of voters.
ContributorsBrewer, Jennifer Marie (Author) / Renzulli, Virgil (Thesis director) / Bovio, Sonia (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
147513-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the

The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.

ContributorsSluga, Allison Leigh (Author) / Hinojosa, Magda (Thesis director) / Gartner, David (Committee member) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05