How does previous political experience and perceived perception by American voters influence elections?

When asked which statement comes closer to their own views, most Americans (58%) say that “voting gives people like me some say about how government runs things,” while fewer (39%) say “voting by people like me doesn’t really affect how government runs things.”

The public is somewhat more skeptical when it comes to the ability of ordinary citizens to influence the government in Washington. Half (50%) say ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington, if they are willing to make the effort, while about as many (47%) say there’s not much ordinary citizens can do to influence the government.

Can ordinary people have an impact?

Majorities of Democrats and Democratic leaners as well as of Republicans and Republican leaners say that voting gives people some say in government, though this view is somewhat more widely held among Democrats (63%) than Republicans (56%).Those with more education are more likely to say voting gives them a voice in government

Democrats are similarly more likely than Republicans to say ordinary citizens can influence the government in Washington: 55% of Democrats say ordinary citizens can make an impact, while 42% say there is not much ordinary people can do. About as many Republicans and leaners say ordinary citizens can influence the government in Washington (47%) as say there’s not much ordinary citizens can do (51%).

Among the 13% of the public that does not identify or lean toward either party – a group that is far less likely to be registered to vote – just 44% say voting gives people some say in how government runs things, while 49% say it doesn’t really affect how government runs things.

Seven-in-ten of those with a post-graduate degree (70%) and 65% of those with a college degree say voting gives people some say in government; somewhat smaller shares of those with only some college experience (58%) or those with no more than a high school diploma (51%) say the same.

Unlike views on voting, there are no educational differences in the shares saying ordinary people can influence government if they make the effort.Scale of political efficacy

Blacks (58%) and Hispanics (57%) are more likely than whites (47%) to say that ordinary citizens can influence the government in Washington, if they’re willing to make the effort. There are no racial differences in views of the impact of voting.

These two measures of opinion on the impact of voting and on ordinary citizens’ ability to influence the government in Washington can be combined to create a scale of political efficacy. Those who rank “high” on the scale say both that voting gives people some say in how government runs things and that ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington, if they are willing to make the effort. “Medium” political efficacy includes those who hold only one of the two views, while “low” political efficacy describes those who do not hold either view.

Overall, 39% of the public falls into the high political efficacy category, while 33% have medium political efficacy and 28% have low political efficacy.

Political efficacy is higher among those with more education. For example, 47% of those with a post-graduate degree rank high on the scale of political efficacy, compared with 33% of those with no more than a high school diploma.

6.3%

explanation:

the acceptance rate for yale university is 6.3%. this means that only 6 percent of people who apply actually get accepted!

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals