Critical Response: Sexism, Racism, and Democracy in the 2016 US Presidential Election
Overview
This critical response examines scholarly analyses by Shook et al. and Schaffner et al. regarding the controversial 2016 US presidential election results. The paper evaluates arguments that sexism, racism, and education levels fundamentally shaped election outcomes while assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of each study.
What this reflection paper covers
- Introduction and overview of election controversy according to Shook et al. and Schaffner et al.
- Critical analysis of Shook et al.'s fieldwork research methodology and findings on racism and sexism
- Evaluation of Schaffner et al.'s education-based analysis and critique of statistical evidence
- References citing both primary sources
Preview
Critical Response
Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
Critical Response
According to Shook et al. and Shaffner et al., the US presidential election results are the most controversial US history elections. Though the announced results were cohesive regarding the actual number of votes, the model applied in accumulating the ballots is the point in question. According to Shook et al., the US presidential elections failed in upholding democracy and the constitution since it was characterized by sexism against women, racism, and US nationalism. However, modern racism dominated the pole since many injustices in making sure the presidential election favored Trump due to racism activities (Shook et al., 2020). I agree with the author in making his judgment because facts and statistics back up his arguments. The author used fieldwork research which gives the primary source of data for both the present and the future reference. However, in as much the author supports most of his arguments, he should have conducted the study manually rather than electronically since electronic means sometimes give an incorrect response from the participants.
According to Shaffner et al., the US presidential election was primarily based on the education levels, thus creating a gap with most of these divisive levels dictated by sexism and racism (Schaffner et al., 2018). The author's analysis is based on other literacy works, which makes it reliable. However, history always reshapes itself based on different situations and circumstances.