Political Science-Critique Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Political Science-Critique - Essay Example So there are always a few who are free to make knowledgeable opinions and pay attention and cause change, James Stimson further explained this dilemma that politics or political change is exerted at the margins only. Very few people or only limited group of people brings about a political change. The history has shown that the leaders have never repented on their mistakes. Therefore if a dramatic critical change is subdued then it’s a game play of very few numbers of people who are knowledgeable and contribute to the change through order, systematically (Stimson, pp. 158-159). He explained his points through a mathematical formula of aggregate gain. Here he contrasted this mathematic term with politics as the real probability of change and effect lies at the centre and the middle. These small scale shifts clustering around the middle cause change. The two extreme sides if treated equally then this 50-50 situation is broken when these very few people that accounts for one or tw o percent of the electorate and thus cause a change and winning position for either of the party. James stressed on the fact that the 50-50 line is the decisive part which is the median and constitutes of one or two percent of the electorate if the elections is divided closely. ... If two out of every 100 Americans change uniformly then the 98% stood still from either democratic or republican and the 2% is the product of change (Stimson, p. 162). James Stimson classified citizens on three segments. The first being the Passionate, these are the most involved people and make lifetime commitments adhering strictly to one side / one political party only. Their ideologue of commitment continues to remain the same over the lifetime acquiring a small portion of the American public. The third group is the Uninvolved people who lacks interest and doesn’t pay attention to movements at all and cancels the Passionate in the aggregate. The second group of people is the Scorekeepers, who are the most dedicated, knowledgeable persons and lies in the centre of both the extremes constituting the non-ideologists pragmatists. They don’t focus on who is correct or incorrect but focus on the outcomes doing a good job or not. These three categories change in sizes over time, but the middle group is responsible for producing the change. Moreover the individual movements on random basis cancel out itself in the aggregate (Stimson, pp. 163-164). Two important points are recognized here where a change is a resultant of responses of those people who pay enough attention to the movements but not being judgemental and adhered to a single party as the passionate, calling for a systematic change. Those people who are really uninvolved don’t participate in surveys; those who do might be ignorant but politically active. He further briefed that the scorekeepers of the middle group are dispassionate but are well informed. All the people cannot be knowledgeable in the same way all the people can