When the Framers were designing the federal government, they believed that the House of Representatives would be "the people’s" branch of government, most in touch with and responsive to the varied and changing needs of the people. Many analysts today might describe the House as the "insiders’ branch", distant from and responsive to special interests. For the essay portion on the final, you will take a position on the "people’s branch" vs. "insiders’ branch" debate by assessing the public’s role in congressional decision-making in the modern House of Representatives. You can do so by:First, explain why legislators may not listen to all constituents all the time. Second, explain how policymaking processes might make it difficult for the public to monitor and evaluate the House. Third, explain why partisan gerrymandering and polarization may make representatives less responsive to their constituents back home.

The question above wants to analyze your perception of the legislative policy in the country and your ability to write an essay. In addition, the essay should contain your views on the formulation of the country's legislative body. For that reason, I can't write the essay for you, but I'll show you how to write it.

The question above shows the topics you should present in the essay. In relation to these topics, you should know that:

You should research these topics and write the essay as follows:

More information on writing an essay at the link:

link

This question asks for an essay, which is a personal task that we cannot provide here. However, we can still develop some ideas that might help you in your work.

The House of Representatives can be considered both the people's branch and the insiders' branch. However, there is no question that the institution is now a lot more restrictive and less connected to the people than it was when the Framers designed it. Therefore, I would argue that it has become an insiders' branch.

First, legislators do not listen to constituents all the time. This is because each legislators has an enormous amount of constituents, all of which have very different characteristics. Moreover, legislators need to reconcile the interests of their constituents with those of other groups.

Second, the policymaking process makes it difficult for the public to monitor and evaluate the House. This is because common people do not have access to the necessary information to make this possible. Moreover, the process is long and complicated, and cannot be easily understood by all people.

Finally, partisan gerrymandering and polarization means that certain groups of constituents are much more important to a politician's career and support than others. This includes constituents in swing states, or constituents who support a particular party. Therefore, these constituents might see their interests represented more often than others.

"the importance of the japanese economy and security is far greater than that of the asian values"

well it depends i think people around the world are coming around to gay marriage. but if you are talking abortion then wow, so much to talk about. such as men thinking they have the right to choose if women can, the fact there are health concerns if the women can't get one, and many more arguments to discuss. so i would definitely say abortion would be a much more interesting topic.