32:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/33xgs57_c1jx_.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/117yqm55h4y_p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3hkl04r--3y18.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ekz38h993cj8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3_o3al2nkyqic.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2z-64g1onu4uw.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505"],"Gingerbread"] 34:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/33xgs57_c1jx_.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/117yqm55h4y_p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3hkl04r--3y18.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ekz38h993cj8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3_o3al2nkyqic.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2z-64g1onu4uw.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505"],"RecordResourceResume"] 35:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/33xgs57_c1jx_.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/117yqm55h4y_p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3hkl04r--3y18.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ekz38h993cj8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3_o3al2nkyqic.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2z-64g1onu4uw.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 36:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/33xgs57_c1jx_.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/117yqm55h4y_p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3hkl04r--3y18.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2ekz38h993cj8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3_o3al2nkyqic.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2z-64g1onu4uw.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790195505"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 23:[["$","$L32",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L33",["$","$L34",null,{"href":"/a-level/politics/edexcel/comparative-approaches/flashcards","label":"Comparative approaches","subjectCode":"a_level_politics","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L35",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L36",null,{"decks":[{"id":"ab4332ea-97f1-412e-8d75-ab3443eab29c","title":"Comparative approaches Flashcards","topicId":"ef2311ad-85b0-56f9-8edd-03795e27c2d6","topicSlug":"comparative-approaches","cards":[{"id":"eb030d90-d8fe-445d-8fab-8c8760eb3dbd","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A comparative approach is a [ ] used to explain political [ ].","back":"A comparative approach is a lens used to explain political similarities and differences.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A comparative approach is a lens used to explain political similarities and differences.","correct":true,"explanation":"Comparative approaches provide different analytical lenses for identifying and explaining similarities and differences between political systems, institutions, processes and behaviour."},{"text":"A comparative approach is a theory used to explain political institutions and elections.","correct":false,"explanation":"Treating an approach as a complete theory narrows its purpose incorrectly. It is a lens used to explain political similarities and differences across systems."},{"text":"A comparative approach is a lens used to explain political laws and constitutions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Laws and constitutions are possible subjects of comparison, but not its entire purpose. The lens explains political similarities and differences more broadly."},{"text":"A comparative approach is a method used to explain political similarities and differences.","correct":false,"explanation":"Calling it a method confuses the analytical perspective with the procedures used to conduct research. A comparative approach is a lens for explaining similarities and differences."}]},{"id":"822c1213-5d48-494a-ae6e-b307f0f4312f","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The rational approach explains politics through [ ]; the cultural approach through [ ].","back":"The rational approach explains politics through individual choices; the cultural approach through shared ideas, beliefs and values.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The rational approach explains politics through individual choices; the cultural approach through shared ideas, beliefs and values.","correct":true,"explanation":"Rational explanations emphasise calculating individuals making choices, whereas cultural explanations focus on the shared ideas, beliefs and values that shape political behaviour."},{"text":"The rational approach explains politics through formal institutions; the cultural approach through shared ideas, beliefs and values.","correct":false,"explanation":"Formal institutions belong primarily to structural explanations, not rational ones. The rational approach focuses on individual choices, while the cultural approach examines shared ideas, beliefs and values."},{"text":"The rational approach explains politics through individual choices; the cultural approach through constitutional rules and procedures.","correct":false,"explanation":"Constitutional rules and procedures are structural factors rather than cultural ones. Cultural analysis examines shared ideas, beliefs and values, while rational analysis concerns individual choices."},{"text":"The rational approach explains politics through shared political values; the cultural approach through individual calculations and choices.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the two approaches. Rational analysis centres on individual choices, whereas cultural analysis explains politics through shared ideas, beliefs and values."}]},{"id":"25bd866d-c35e-421c-a866-c702b9b9b2ce","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The [ ] approach explains outcomes through [ ].","back":"The structural approach explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The structural approach explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes.","correct":true,"explanation":"Structural analysis explains political outcomes by examining institutions, constitutions, legal arrangements and formal processes that shape how power is distributed and exercised."},{"text":"The cultural approach explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes.","correct":false,"explanation":"Cultural analysis focuses on shared ideas, beliefs and values rather than formal arrangements. The structural approach explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes."},{"text":"The structural approach explains outcomes through individual calculations and choices.","correct":false,"explanation":"Individual calculations and choices are central to rational analysis. Structural analysis instead explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes."},{"text":"The rational approach explains outcomes through shared ideas, beliefs and values.","correct":false,"explanation":"This combines the rational label with a cultural explanation. The structural approach is the one that explains outcomes through institutions and formal processes."}]},{"id":"412b9ab3-d785-4df5-b1e9-732dec56967f","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which comparative approach best explains US suspicion of “big government”?","back":"Cultural approach.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Cultural approach.","correct":true,"explanation":"Suspicion of “big government” reflects enduring American ideas and values concerning liberty, individualism and limited government, so it is best explained culturally."},{"text":"Structural approach.","correct":false,"explanation":"Structures may restrict government power, but the suspicion itself arises from shared American beliefs and values about liberty and limited government, making the cultural approach strongest."},{"text":"Rational approach.","correct":false,"explanation":"Rational analysis would emphasise individuals pursuing calculated interests. Widespread suspicion of “big government” instead reflects shared ideas and values, so the cultural approach fits best."},{"text":"Institutional approach.","correct":false,"explanation":"Institutional rules can embody limited government, but they do not primarily explain the underlying public suspicion. That attitude is best understood through the cultural approach."}]},{"id":"52083d16-7f2b-48e2-8dcb-c6ec6e08692c","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A [ ] constitution is in one authoritative document; an [ ] constitution is spread across several sources.","back":"A codified constitution is in one authoritative document; an uncodified constitution is spread across several sources.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A codified constitution is in one authoritative document; an uncodified constitution is spread across several sources.","correct":true,"explanation":"A codified constitution is consolidated into one authoritative document, whereas an uncodified constitution draws its rules from statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and other sources."},{"text":"A entrenched constitution is in one authoritative document; an uncodified constitution is spread across several sources.","correct":false,"explanation":"Entrenchment concerns how difficult constitutional rules are to amend, not whether they occupy one document. The correct contrasting terms are codified and uncodified."},{"text":"A codified constitution is in one authoritative document; an federal constitution is spread across several sources.","correct":false,"explanation":"Federal describes a territorial division of sovereignty, not the number of constitutional sources. A constitution spread across several sources is uncodified."},{"text":"A uncodified constitution is in one authoritative document; a codified constitution is spread across several sources.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the definitions. A codified constitution is contained in one authoritative document, while an uncodified constitution is spread across several sources."}]},{"id":"13f1a58a-70b0-4596-9bd7-27c90b885211","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is UK devolution not the same as US federalism?","back":"

US state powers are constitutionally protected.
UK devolved powers are legally granted by Westminster.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

US state powers are constitutionally protected.
UK devolved powers are legally granted by Westminster.

","correct":true,"explanation":"US states possess constitutionally protected powers under federalism, while UK devolution rests on Acts of Parliament and remains legally dependent on sovereign Westminster."},{"text":"

US state powers are legally granted by Congress.
UK devolved powers are constitutionally protected.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the legal positions. US state powers are constitutionally protected, whereas UK devolved powers are legally granted by Westminster under parliamentary sovereignty."},{"text":"

US state powers can be withdrawn by the president.
UK devolved powers can be withdrawn only by referendum.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Neither claim identifies the constitutional distinction. US state powers are protected by the Constitution, while Westminster legally grants UK devolved powers and remains sovereign."},{"text":"

US state powers depend on congressional conventions.
UK devolved powers are protected by federal law.

","correct":false,"explanation":"US state powers derive from the federal Constitution, not congressional convention, and the UK is not federal. UK devolved powers are legally granted by Westminster."}]},{"id":"7aaebf7f-c6b0-4c5b-bd08-ec408912c97c","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The USA is based on [ ]; the UK has more [ ] because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","back":"The USA is based on separation of powers; the UK has more fusion of powers because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The USA is based on separation of powers; the UK has more fusion of powers because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","correct":true,"explanation":"The US Constitution separates the executive and legislature, whereas UK ministers are also parliamentarians, producing a greater fusion between executive and legislative personnel."},{"text":"The USA is based on fusion of powers; the UK has more separation of powers because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the comparison. The USA separates executive and legislative institutions, while ministers sitting in Parliament create greater fusion of powers in the UK."},{"text":"The USA is based on separation of powers; the UK has more judicial supremacy because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ministers sitting in Parliament demonstrates fusion between executive and legislature, not judicial supremacy. The USA is based on separation of powers, while the UK has more fusion."},{"text":"The USA is based on parliamentary sovereignty; the UK has more fusion of powers because the PM and Cabinet sit in Parliament.","correct":false,"explanation":"Parliamentary sovereignty is a defining UK principle, not the basis of US government. The USA uses separation of powers, while the UK displays greater fusion of powers."}]},{"id":"500826d6-29ca-4f36-981a-94631e7eb7d1","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the structural approach usually strongest for UK-US constitutional differences?","back":"Formal rules differ: US codification, judicial review and federalism versus UK parliamentary sovereignty and devolution.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Formal rules differ: US codification, judicial review and federalism versus UK parliamentary sovereignty and devolution.","correct":true,"explanation":"These differences concern constitutions, courts and territorial arrangements, so formal institutional structures provide the clearest explanation of contrasting UK and US constitutional systems."},{"text":"Political values differ: US codification, judicial review and federalism versus UK parliamentary sovereignty and devolution.","correct":false,"explanation":"The examples listed are formal constitutional arrangements rather than political values. Their institutional character means the structural approach usually provides the strongest explanation."},{"text":"Individual choices differ: US presidential power, party competition and elections versus UK prime ministerial power and referendums.","correct":false,"explanation":"Individual choice may explain particular behaviour, but constitutional contrasts principally arise from formal rules. US codification, judicial review and federalism differ structurally from UK parliamentary sovereignty and devolution."},{"text":"Shared beliefs differ: US individualism, limited government and liberty versus UK collectivism, strong government and equality.","correct":false,"explanation":"Cultural beliefs can illuminate political attitudes, but they do not most directly describe constitutional differences. Formal rules concerning codification, judicial review, sovereignty and territorial power make structural analysis stronger."}]},{"id":"e09d155d-6d5a-4949-89b0-6a15c6971236","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"Why is the House of Commons dominant over the House of Lords?","back":"

Elected, giving democratic legitimacy.
Controls supply and confidence.
Can override Lords using Parliament Acts.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Elected, giving democratic legitimacy.
Controls supply and confidence.
Can override Lords using Parliament Acts.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Election gives the Commons democratic legitimacy, while control of finance and confidence, plus the Parliament Acts, enables it to prevail over the unelected Lords."},{"text":"

Appointed, giving specialist legitimacy.
Controls judicial appointments.
Can override Commons using Parliament Acts.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Lords is not the elected chamber and cannot normally initiate or control supply and confidence; the Commons has these decisive advantages and can use the Parliament Acts."},{"text":"

Elected, giving democratic legitimacy.
Controls ministerial appointments.
Can dissolve Parliament using Parliament Acts.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The monarch, not the Commons, formally appoints ministers, and the Lords cannot remove a government through confidence votes; Commons authority rests on election and financial control."},{"text":"

Appointed, giving democratic legitimacy.
Controls taxation and supply.
Can veto Commons using Parliament Acts.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Lords may scrutinise legislation but cannot routinely veto the elected chamber or control taxation; its appointed status makes it weaker than the Commons."}]},{"id":"19ec95ec-103a-4fee-8224-0c5f696cafe5","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What is the House of Lords’ main role and key weakness?","back":"

Mainly a revising chamber.
Lacks equal democratic legitimacy.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Mainly a revising chamber.
Lacks equal democratic legitimacy.

","correct":true,"explanation":"The Lords primarily scrutinises and revises legislation. Its central weakness is that appointment rather than election limits its democratic legitimacy compared with the Commons."},{"text":"

Mainly a policy-making chamber.
Has equal democratic legitimacy.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Lords is not mainly responsible for initiating government policy, and its appointed membership means it lacks, rather than possesses, equal democratic legitimacy."},{"text":"

Mainly a scrutinising chamber.
Lacks equal financial authority.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Lords does scrutinise ministers, but its defining parliamentary function is revision of legislation; appointment also leaves it weaker in democratic legitimacy."},{"text":"

Mainly a legislative chamber.
Lacks equal constitutional authority.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Lords can amend legislation but is not the primary legislative chamber, and hereditary or appointed membership does not provide equal democratic legitimacy."}]},{"id":"1b93dc2b-a95e-4142-8cf1-037b9fd7b05d","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What are the US Senate’s powers over appointments, treaties and impeachment?","back":"

Confirms appointments.
Ratifies treaties.
Tries impeachments.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Confirms appointments.
Ratifies treaties.
Tries impeachments.

","correct":true,"explanation":"The Senate exercises advice and consent by confirming appointments, ratifying treaties, and conducting impeachment trials after the House of Representatives impeaches."},{"text":"

Nominates appointments.
Vetoes treaties.
Initiates impeachments.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The President nominates appointments, while the Senate confirms them; treaty negotiation is executive-led, and the Senate ratifies rather than vetoes treaties."},{"text":"

Appoints officials.
Negotiates treaties.
Initiates impeachments.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Senate does not independently appoint officials or negotiate treaties, and impeachment is initiated in the House; the Senate confirms, ratifies, and tries."},{"text":"

Rejects appointments.
Signs treaties.
Charges impeachments.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Senate’s constitutional role is approval, not rejection alone: it confirms nominees and ratifies treaties, while impeachment trials follow House charges."}]},{"id":"56e1bd71-a9b9-4194-bd72-f4e191cfe6f5","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does chamber equality differ between US and UK bicameralism?","back":"US chambers are closer to co-equal; the UK Commons is superior to the Lords.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"US chambers are closer to co-equal; the UK Commons is superior to the Lords.","correct":true,"explanation":"The US Constitution gives both chambers substantial legislative authority, whereas the Parliament Acts and conventions make the elected UK Commons superior to the Lords."},{"text":"UK chambers are closer to co-equal; the US Senate is superior to the House.","correct":false,"explanation":"The UK Lords is not co-equal with the Commons because its veto is restricted, while US chambers have significant but not identical constitutional powers."},{"text":"US chambers are unequal; the UK Lords is superior to the Commons.","correct":false,"explanation":"The US House and Senate are both powerful, but neither is simply superior overall; in the UK, the Commons rather than Lords dominates because it is elected."},{"text":"US House is superior to the Senate; the UK chambers are co-equal.","correct":false,"explanation":"The US system does not make the House superior to the Senate, and the UK Lords cannot normally override the elected Commons under the Parliament Acts."}]},{"id":"a9cf197e-f247-4515-9618-aba276d8495b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does the rational approach explain UK MPs following party whips?","back":"MPs obey whips to gain office or promotion.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"MPs obey whips to gain office or promotion.","correct":true,"explanation":"Rational-choice theory treats MPs as office-seeking actors: obeying party whips helps them secure ministerial office, promotion, or continued career opportunities."},{"text":"MPs ignore whips to gain office or promotion.","correct":false,"explanation":"Whips generally enforce party discipline rather than offering MPs independent policy freedom; rational MPs comply because obedience can bring office or promotion."},{"text":"MPs obey whips to represent constituency opinion.","correct":false,"explanation":"The rational approach does not assume MPs obey primarily from personal loyalty; it emphasises calculated career benefits from supporting the party line."},{"text":"MPs disobey whips to gain office or promotion.","correct":false,"explanation":"Disobeying whips can threaten advancement and ministerial prospects. Rational-choice theory therefore predicts compliance when career rewards depend on party support."}]},{"id":"6c2ebd7e-a964-4954-aaf3-5bd6d151c929","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The US President is [ ]; the UK Prime Minister is [ ].","back":"The US President is head of state and head of government; the UK Prime Minister is head of government but not head of state.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The US President is head of state and head of government; the UK Prime Minister is head of government but not head of state.","correct":true,"explanation":"The US President combines the symbolic national role with executive leadership, whereas the UK Prime Minister leads government while the monarch is head of state."},{"text":"The US President is head of state but not head of government; the UK Prime Minister is head of government and head of state.","correct":false,"explanation":"The US President is both head of state and government, but the UK Prime Minister is not head of state; that role belongs to the monarch."},{"text":"The US President is head of government but not head of state; the UK Prime Minister is head of state and head of government.","correct":false,"explanation":"The UK Prime Minister leads government but does not hold the head-of-state role. The US President combines both roles rather than being only head of government."},{"text":"The US President is head of state and head of government; the UK Prime Minister is head of state but not head of government.","correct":false,"explanation":"Neither system reverses these roles: the US President combines both offices, while the UK monarch is head of state and the Prime Minister heads government."}]},{"id":"580a62a8-1918-47a6-9095-925fcab72689","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why can US Presidents be blocked by Congress while UK PMs can dominate Parliament with a majority?","back":"

US separation: executive and legislature are separate.
UK fusion: a Commons majority controls legislation.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

US separation: executive and legislature are separate.
UK fusion: a Commons majority controls legislation.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Separation of powers gives Congress an independent mandate and law-making role, allowing resistance. Fusion lets a UK government with a Commons majority usually control legislation."},{"text":"

US fusion: executive and legislature share power.
UK separation: a Commons majority blocks legislation.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The US executive and legislature are institutionally separate, not fused; in the UK, a Commons majority usually strengthens government control rather than creating congressional-style blockage."},{"text":"

US separation: executive and legislature share power.
UK fusion: a Commons majority blocks legislation.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Congress can oppose a President because it has an independent electoral mandate, whereas UK ministers normally rely on their party’s Commons majority to pass legislation."},{"text":"

US fusion: executive and legislature are separate.
UK separation: a Commons majority controls legislation.

","correct":false,"explanation":"A UK majority government is not normally blocked by a separate legislature, and the US system does not fuse executive and congressional authority in one institution."}]},{"id":"efc97073-036f-4cbc-9452-732083a5045f","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When Congress is hostile, what rational tool can a US President use?","back":"Executive orders.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Executive orders.","correct":true,"explanation":"Executive orders direct how the executive branch implements policy and can help a President act without new legislation, although courts and Congress can limit them."},{"text":"Treaty ratification.","correct":false,"explanation":"Treaty ratification is controlled by the Senate, so it is not a unilateral presidential tool for bypassing a hostile Congress; executive orders are more direct."},{"text":"Declarations of war.","correct":false,"explanation":"The power to declare war belongs to Congress, although Presidents command the armed forces; it is therefore not a general unilateral legislative workaround."},{"text":"Impeachment proceedings.","correct":false,"explanation":"Impeachment is a congressional process used to hold officials accountable, not an instrument available to a President for implementing policy against Congress."}]},{"id":"36321623-1845-423b-9a74-2f93481e2083","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What rational tools can UK Prime Ministers use to maintain authority?","back":"

Patronage.
Reshuffles.
Party management.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Patronage.
Reshuffles.
Party management.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Appointments, ministerial changes and party coordination give a Prime Minister practical influence over colleagues, helping maintain authority within both government and the governing party."},{"text":"

Referendums.
Judicial reviews.
Public petitions.

","correct":false,"explanation":"These are mechanisms for public accountability rather than the Prime Minister’s main tools for controlling ministers and the governing party. Authority is maintained through patronage, reshuffles and party management."},{"text":"

Manifestos.
Election campaigns.
Press conferences.

","correct":false,"explanation":"These describe broad policy or electoral activities, not the internal methods used to manage ministers and MPs. The relevant tools are patronage, reshuffles and party management."},{"text":"

Courts.
Devolved legislatures.
Local councils.

","correct":false,"explanation":"These institutions can influence government, but they are not rational tools directly controlled by a Prime Minister to maintain authority. The correct tools concern appointments, ministerial changes and party discipline."}]},{"id":"0189a34c-fd97-4289-82e2-76f4efed71d6","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"[ ] means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since [ ], the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","back":"Judicial review means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since Marbury v Madison 1803, the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Judicial review means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since Marbury v Madison 1803, the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","correct":true,"explanation":"Judicial review is the process by which courts assess legality, while Marbury v Madison 1803 established the US Supreme Court’s claimed power to invalidate unconstitutional laws."},{"text":"Parliamentary sovereignty means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since Marbury v Madison 1803, the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","correct":false,"explanation":"Constitutional supremacy describes the legal hierarchy, but it is not the name for courts examining government legality. The historical case establishing the Supreme Court’s claimed power was Marbury v Madison 1803."},{"text":"Constitutional rights means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since Marbury v Madison 1803, the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Bill of Rights protects individual liberties but does not name the process of testing government legality. That process is judicial review, and its landmark US foundation is Marbury v Madison 1803."},{"text":"Judicial review means courts examine whether government actions are lawful; since R (Miller) v Secretary of State 2017, the US Supreme Court has claimed power to strike down unconstitutional laws.","correct":false,"explanation":"The cited case is the wrong historical authority and is associated with the UK’s constitutional arrangements, not the US power to invalidate unconstitutional laws. The correct case is Marbury v Madison 1803."}]},{"id":"7e11142c-045a-4bfe-9e13-6239b24038f1","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why is the US Supreme Court legally stronger than the UK Supreme Court?","back":"

US Constitution is supreme and rights are entrenched.
UK Parliament remains sovereign.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

US Constitution is supreme and rights are entrenched.
UK Parliament remains sovereign.

","correct":true,"explanation":"The US Constitution is legally supreme and entrenched, allowing courts to protect constitutional rights. The UK’s uncodified system leaves Parliament legally sovereign, limiting the UK Supreme Court’s power."},{"text":"

US Congress is sovereign and rights are flexible.
UK Supreme Court remains sovereign.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the constitutional position. The US Constitution is supreme and entrenched, whereas the UK Supreme Court operates under parliamentary sovereignty and cannot generally invalidate primary legislation."},{"text":"

US states are supreme and rights are temporary.
UK Supreme Court remains sovereign.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Both parts incorrectly suggest that the US lacks entrenched constitutional authority and that the UK court is legally supreme. In reality, US constitutional supremacy contrasts with UK parliamentary sovereignty."},{"text":"

US Constitution is advisory and rights are unprotected.
UK courts remain sovereign.

","correct":false,"explanation":"A written constitution alone does not explain the distinction in the suggested way. The US Constitution is supreme with entrenched rights, while the UK Parliament remains the supreme law-making authority."}]},{"id":"9f1b973a-77fc-4c30-82f4-62c0a266de1f","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What can the UK Supreme Court do under the Human Rights Act, and what can it not do to Acts of Parliament?","back":"

Can issue declarations of incompatibility.
Cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Can issue declarations of incompatibility.
Cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Under the Human Rights Act, the UK Supreme Court can declare legislation incompatible with Convention rights, but it cannot invalidate or strike down an Act of Parliament."},{"text":"

Can issue declarations of incompatibility.
Can strike down Acts of Parliament.

","correct":false,"explanation":"A declaration of incompatibility does not invalidate legislation, so the second claim overstates the court’s power. The court can issue such a declaration but cannot strike down Acts of Parliament."},{"text":"

Can issue advisory opinions.
Cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The court’s power is not limited to advisory comments, because it can formally issue a declaration of incompatibility. However, it still cannot strike down an Act of Parliament."},{"text":"

Can strike down Acts of Parliament.
Cannot issue declarations of incompatibility.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Human Rights Act does not give the UK Supreme Court power to annul primary legislation. It can issue declarations of incompatibility, which signal a rights conflict without invalidating the Act."}]},{"id":"ab4346f2-ad9c-409a-a20b-21aaaba40daa","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does rights protection differ overall between the USA and UK?","back":"

USA: stronger legally, more politicised.
UK: more flexible, easier for Parliament to override.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

USA: stronger legally, more politicised.
UK: more flexible, easier for Parliament to override.

","correct":true,"explanation":"US rights protection is stronger because constitutional rights are entrenched and courts can invalidate laws, but appointments and litigation make the system more politically contested. UK protection is more flexible and easier for Parliament to change."},{"text":"

USA: more flexible, easier for Congress to override.
UK: stronger legally, less politicised.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the overall comparison. US rights have stronger legal entrenchment, while UK rights protection is more flexible and can be altered more easily by Parliament."},{"text":"

USA: weaker legally, less politicised.
UK: more entrenched, harder for Parliament to override.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The UK system is not generally stronger legally than the US system because Parliament remains sovereign. US protection is more entrenched, although its judicial politics can be more openly contested."},{"text":"

USA: equally flexible, less politicised.
UK: equally entrenched, harder for Parliament to override.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This incorrectly treats both systems as equally flexible and non-political. US constitutional rights are legally stronger and more politicised, whereas Parliament can more readily alter UK protection."}]},{"id":"f5adf706-64ae-488d-b93b-d4551a4b2061","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"Why are US parties often less internally disciplined than UK parties?","back":"

US: primaries select candidates.
US: legislators do not need executive promotion.
UK: whipping and confidence votes unify parties.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

US: primaries select candidates.
US: legislators do not need executive promotion.
UK: whipping and confidence votes unify parties.

","correct":true,"explanation":"US primaries give legislators incentives to answer to party voters, while separation of powers means they do not depend on executive promotion. UK whipping and confidence votes create stronger party unity."},{"text":"

US: party leaders select candidates.
US: legislators need executive promotion.
UK: whipping and confidence votes divide parties.

","correct":false,"explanation":"US legislators are not normally selected by party leaders alone, and their independence is not mainly caused by needing executive promotion. Primaries and separation of powers weaken discipline compared with the UK."},{"text":"

US: primaries select candidates.
US: legislators need executive promotion.
UK: whipping and confidence votes divide parties.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This assigns UK-style discipline to the US and reverses the effect of confidence votes. US primaries and the lack of executive promotion reduce party control, whereas UK mechanisms strengthen it."},{"text":"

US: manifestos select candidates.
US: legislators need executive promotion.
UK: whipping and confidence votes unify parties.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Party manifestos and cabinet promotion do not describe the central institutional difference. US primaries and separation of powers weaken discipline, while UK whips and confidence votes reinforce it."}]},{"id":"5c2060c7-873f-4fe7-937a-5133a5668d9c","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does campaign finance differ between the USA and UK?","back":"

USA: PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors dominate.
UK: Electoral Commission regulates spending more tightly.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

USA: PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors dominate.
UK: Electoral Commission regulates spending more tightly.

","correct":true,"explanation":"US campaigns can receive substantial funding from PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors, whereas UK expenditure is subject to tighter Electoral Commission regulation and limits."},{"text":"

USA: Electoral Commission regulates spending more tightly.
UK: PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors dominate.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the regulatory comparison. US elections are characterised by major spending from PACs, super PACs and donors, while UK campaign expenditure is more tightly regulated."},{"text":"

USA: political parties receive no private funding.
UK: spending is largely unregulated.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Neither country’s system is accurately described here. The US permits major influence from PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors, while the UK imposes tighter spending regulation."},{"text":"

USA: public funding controls most campaign spending.
UK: Electoral Commission regulates spending more tightly.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The UK does regulate campaign spending more tightly, but the US is not mainly characterised by state-controlled funding. PACs, super PACs and wealthy donors are central to US campaign finance."}]},{"id":"0e0b7638-5593-4a35-9dad-54fe8508c91c","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why do US pressure groups often have more access points than UK groups?","back":"

US: federalism, primaries, courts and campaign finance.
UK: more reliance on ministers and Parliament.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

US: federalism, primaries, courts and campaign finance.
UK: more reliance on ministers and Parliament.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Federalism creates multiple governments to lobby, while primaries, courts and campaign finance provide further routes for influence. UK groups have fewer access points and rely more on ministers and Parliament."},{"text":"

US: more reliance on ministers and Parliament.
UK: federalism, primaries, courts and campaign finance.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the access-point comparison. US groups can target federal and state institutions, primaries, courts and campaign finance, while UK groups rely more heavily on ministers and Parliament."},{"text":"

US: a single executive access point.
UK: federalism, primaries, courts and campaign finance.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The US has more than one central access point because federalism, courts, primaries and campaign finance create alternative routes. UK groups do not generally have this same range of institutional targets."},{"text":"

US: federalism and courts are unavailable.
UK: less reliance on ministers and Parliament.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Courts and campaign finance are important US access points, not features that make UK groups more dependent on them. UK groups generally rely more on ministers and Parliament."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-12","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Comparative approaches","title":"Comparative approaches Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/a-level/politics/edexcel/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L37"}]}],"topicId":"ef2311ad-85b0-56f9-8edd-03795e27c2d6","walled":"$L38"}],"$L39","$L3a"]