1. Unit 4 Ap Human Geography Vocabulary
2. Ap Human Geography Study Guide
3. Ap Human Geography Unit 4 Study Guide Answers

A Democratic state senator in South Carolina wants to end the practice of lawmakers choosing who votes for them. The senator introduced a bill Wednesday that would create an independent commission to draw the state’s political districts. Lawmakers in the GOP-controlled Legislature now control that process. South Carolina voters would approve or reject the boundaries of new political districts in a statewide referendum if the bill becomes law. The state redraws its political boundaries for South Carolina House, state Senate and U.S.

House seats after each 10-year U.S. Census the next Census is in 2020.' This is my favorite discovery after the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

AP Human Geography: Home Contact. Chapter 8 Political Geography. Learn ap human geography unit 4 with free interactive flashcards. Choose from 500 different sets of ap human geography unit 4 flashcards on Quizlet.

The election was obviously very contentious and incredibly close, both in regard to the popular vote as well as the Electoral College. Using this, you can re-divide the states of the union by shifting the counties around. Using the voting patterns based on the county-level data, you can see how your proposed divisions would have impacted the 2016 presidential election.

There have been many plans on how to divide the 50 states into (, and the ), and this is another iteration of that age-old theme. While this isn’t an activity in gerrymandering in the strictest sense (this is not reapportioning within the state based on population change but between states), it shows just how gerrymandering works.

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency, but you could make it a landslide (in either direction) if you manipulate the current state borders. The highest electoral vote I could engineer for Donald Trump was 407, and the highest electoral total I could manufacture for Hillary Clinton was 402. The point of this is to show that the balance within and among states can be far more delicate than we might presume. Just a line here or a line there can dramatically alter the balance of power.

Activity #1: Try to make this a landslide victory for the Republican Party. How many electoral votes could you garner for the Republicans? Add a screenshot. Activity #2: Try to make this a landslide victory for the Democratic Party. How many electoral votes could you garner for the Democrats? Add a screenshot.

Activity #3: Try to tip the election to the Democrats with the most subtle, minor changes that might go under the radar. Explain your changes to the state map. Add a screenshot.

Both Sudan and Egypt claim the rightful border between their countries should include the Hala'ib Triangle on their side of the border. This leaves Bir Tawil unclaimed and it pops up in the news when those claim it. This bizarre case exemplifies some important principles of political geography with a tangible example to test the limits of political sovereignty and what it take to be called a country.

If discussing the elements necessary to create a state, this article would help fuel a discussion, especially when some people are eager to. Both Sudan and Egypt claim the rightful border between their countries should include the Hala'ib Triangle on their side of the border. This leaves Bir Tawil unclaimed and it pops up in the news when those hoping to create a micronation claim it. This bizarre case exemplifies some important principles of political geography with a tangible example to test the limits of political sovereignty and what it take to be called a country. If discussing the elements necessary to create a state, this article would help fuel a discussion, especially when some people are eager to create their own micronation. Tags: political, states, unit 4 political.

Unit 4 Ap Human Geography Vocabulary

Both Sudan and Egypt claim the rightful border between their countries should include the Hala'ib Triangle on their side of the border. This leaves Bir Tawil unclaimed and it pops up in the news when those hoping to create a micronation claim it. This bizarre case exemplifies some important principles of political geography with a tangible example to test the limits of political sovereignty and what it take to be called a country.

If discussing the elements necessary to create a state, this article would help fuel a discussion, especially when some people are eager to create their own micronation. Tags: political, states, unit 4 political. Both Sudan and Egypt claim the rightful border between their countries should include the Hala'ib Triangle on their side of the border.

This leaves Bir Tawil unclaimed and it pops up in the news when those hoping to create a micronation claim it. This bizarre case exemplifies some important principles of political geography with a tangible example to test the limits of political sovereignty and what it take to be called a country. If discussing the elements necessary to create a state, this article would help fuel a discussion, especially when some people are eager to create their own micronation. Tags: political, states, unit 4 political. Since this site is updated daily and organized chronically, finding some of the best posts from the past can be difficult for someone new to the site. Some of the posts are on current events and not as relevant several years after the fact, but I want to make it easier to find the older posts that are still relevant today more easily accessible. I’ve organized some of more ‘evergreen’ posts by the AP Human Geography curriculum unit headings as well as ‘shortlist’ for each unit.

Additionally, will also guide you on how to get more out of this website. This is related to world cultural geography by the word gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing legislative boundaries for the purpose of benefiting the party in power. Gerrymandering is completely and utterly unfair to the powerless party. The process is practically setting up zones of people who are, for instance, democratic, that means that particular county (region, district, etc.) is democratic majority and possibly have republican minority, therefore the democrats win that county (region, district, etc). For a region to be able to succeed as an independent country, it must fulfill a series of requirements.

In the case of Catalonia, Spain, it is far from what citizens in that area want to pursue, even when Catalonia is one of the richer regions in Spain. There are many factors that inhibit Catalonia from achieving its status as an independent country such as economic, political and cultural issues. With Spain’s current economy, it would be almost impossible for Catalonia to support itself as its own nation.

In addition, if Catalonia gains its independence from Spain, it would not be able to be a part of the United Nations (UN). Language would prove as another obstacle for Catalonia as their combination of French and Spanish is not the official dialect of the region. Cultural assimilation would be difficult as Catalonians would have to transition and adapt Spain’s vascos and gallegos to a version of their own.

However, centripetal forces in Catalonian citizens unify them as strong communicators within their region in order for them to promote and retain their distinct cultural identity. As the video emphasizes how to gain independence; Catalonia does not qualify to achieve independence as it fails to meet some of the characteristics such as an “established group, marginalization, and economic stability.” However, as Spain’s economy begins to weaken, Catalonian citizens can take this opportunity to work towards their goal as being an independent entity from Spain. I have nearly always supported large governments or governmental entities breaking down to smaller levels in order to better suit smaller groups (I believe you call it devolution but I can not remember if that is quite it off the top of my head).

What I do not agree with is having to have had a past history of oppression in order to secede. This seems to say that there are some movements that are not legitimate because they haven't been oppressed enough. Who is the judge of this in the end? Why can't any group of people who come under an identity that want to be their own people do so, and instead need to seek approval? This is not to say that every single one should or has reason to, but to ask who is the one who gets to decide the difference?

There was once an episode of Family Guy where Peter Griffin establishes his own country when his house is left of a map of Quahog. This story reminds me of that episode, but also raises some questions as to what it takes to be a sovereign nation. Jeremiah Heaton has long term goals of creating an agricultural production center, has been living in area and is willing to put in the work to establish a political identity. Also an extreme example it does show how some nations come to be globally recognized and also how many forces are against new nations being established and recognized. This man decided to give his daughter a piece of unclaimed territory in Africa for her seventh birthday so that she could be a princess. Now he wants his country to be recognized by surrounding countries as well as the UN.

Everyone is saying that this is not allowed for various reasons. He does not have people living there, he is not himself inhabiting the area, other countries are not recognizing his claim, and one cannot simply put a flag in the ground and say that it is theirs. If this were the case there would be seven billion flags around the world. He is claiming that he has hopes for this area, turning it into an agricultural center where he can help with food supply issues in the surrounding area. I see that he has hopes and dreams for the area, but as far as calling it his own country I don't see that going as well as he thinks.

Having read through most of the article, I find it funny how he actually believes that he can just step foot on soil and claim it as his own country. The description, “members of the occupying nation must have lived on the land for several years,” and, “it must also demonstrate that it has occupied the space, not that it just physically stepped foot there,” are the best ways to describe why it would never work for him. You have to make use of the space that is provided. Even though he claims that he will, turn the country into an agricultural production center that will tackle food security issues in the region, it hasn’t been done yet, and even if it was he wouldn’t occupy nearly enough of the space. Egypt and Sudan are officially negotiating over the land.

The first reaction might be to blame partisan redistricting (a.k.a. ) for the the political gridlock between the presidential results and House of Representatives. Gerrymandering does play a role, but the spatial concentrations and distributions of voting constituencies explain why the Democrats have recently won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, but can't control the House of Representatives.

Metro areas are, currently creating a national majority for Democrats, but that high concentration is a drawback when trying to win a majority of the seats in the House. This is a good article as a primer for electoral geography.

I've shared some links in the past that some mapping dilemmas with current events in Ukraine. Shows international borders differently and as a part of Russia. We learn that this isn't the only international border dispute that is displayed differently in Google Maps.

Google uses over 30 distinct versions of international borders because there is an. However, this article from is more explicitly geographic in its analysis of the situation and how the discipline(s) of geography/cartography shape the political situation; maps are NOT just a reflection of reality on the ground. To paraphrase the cartographer, there is a lot of teaching applications and discussion material in these articles. Questions to Ponder: Why have different cartography for different audiences? Why does this small cartographic decision matter? How can maps be used to lie/stretch the truth? How to governments derive political legitimacy from maps?

Why is Google the cartographic gatekeeper? Even though in past years France and Scotland have been friendly and wanted the best for each other, Scottish independence is not on the list of things to do for France. They have good blood together, sharing foods, music and alcohol at festivals there is no need to worry about any hatred happening even if the French does not back Scotland's independence. While some think that France would think that areas like Brittany and Corsica would want independence from France that is not the reason. To keep checks and balances in place a strong United Kingdom is needed to keep Germany in line. With the independence of Scotland, the UK gets a little bit weaker and France is not okay with that. This computer programmer (code word in the newspapers for geographers using GIS) has created a way to take the human element out of the redistricting process.

Dividing places into separate, formal regions is an important task, one that often times requires an intimate knowledge of the place, it's cultural, economic and physical characteristics. That's how I would want things to been done in a perfect world, but partisan chicanery has led to so many gerrymandered districts that the human touch is what many of us fear more than a cold, impersonal division that does not take place, history, and community into account.

Ap Human Geography Study Guide

Questions to Ponder: Do you trust the politicians that are in charge of your state to create better districts than computer-generated districts that are optimized for compactness? What are some of the potential limitations of compact districts? Would an independent committee/bipartisan group do a better job? How does the Voting Rights Act complicate the redistricting process? The discovery of a headless corpse in the Netherlands helped Belgium and its bigger Dutch neighbor resolve a property squabble that began in 1961. In a region that has long known geopolitical and linguistic squabbles, and where Belgium has lived in the shadow of its neighbor, the land swap was anything but inevitable. In 1961, when the Meuse was reconfigured to aid navigation, it had the side effect of pushing three pieces of land onto the wrong side of the river. The uninhabited area subsequently gained a reputation for lawlessness, wild parties and prostitution.

(Europe) The Belgian-Dutch border on Meuse River was drawn to aid navigation but caused parts of each country to end up on the wrong side of the river. When a murder happened on Belgian land on the opposing river bank and required a tricky river landing, the countries realized the impracticality. Without fighting over land in other regions of the world, Belgium relinquished 35 acres and the Netherlands gave up 7 peacefully, strengthening their relations. Illogical borders like this exist throughout the world, including between Norway and Finland and the US and Canada.

This article shows that despite small geopolitical and linguistic squabbles, Belgium and Norway still peacefully traded land to fix unreasonable boarders. This also showcases the importance of maintaining friendly relations and practical boarders between countries. A peninsula belonging to the Netherlands was cut off by a treacherous river and Belgium, through which the Dutch needed special permission to cross over. After the peninsula became a hub for lawlessness, it was agreed by both countries that the boarder needed to be fixed. This shows that these changes can be done peacefully by countries and that geographic location is very important.

'Okwe’ll admit it. Jerry Mandering isn’t a real political candidate. We created this video to highlight the absurdity of the process behind having elected officials draw their own lines to their advantage – a manipulative practice known as 'gerrymandering.' Public officials like Del. Jerry Mandering wish you wouldn’t worry about the fact that he can pick and choose his own voters, but you can let your legislators know that you support a non-partisan effort for fairer, more competitive elections.'

'SOMALILAND, a slim slice of Somali-inhabited territory on the southern shore of the Gulf of Aden, ticks almost all the boxes of statehood. It has its own currency, a reasonably effective bureaucracy and a trained army and police force. But it has yet to receive official recognition from a single foreign government in the years since it declared independence in 1991. To the outside world, it is an autonomous region of Somalia, subject to the Somali Federal Government (SFG) in Mogadishu. Why is it not a state?

Throughout the post-independence era, geopolitics in Africa has tended to respect 'colonial borders', i.e. The borders laid down by European colonial powers in the 19th century. Across the continent, there have been only two significant alterations to the colonial map since the 1960s: the division of Eritrea from Ethiopia, in 1993; and South Sudan from Sudan, in 2011.' Like many new developing countries, it is hard to overcome the hardships to prove that you deserve to be recognized as a new nation. Being recognized as a true nation means that there is political and economic stability within a country.

The area where Somaliland is located is very unstable. Its parent nation, Somalia is very unstable.

Ap Human Geography Unit 4 Study Guide Answers

For example, in Somalia, there are pirates who hijack mariners and take them and the vessel hostage. Stability within a country is a major aspect for the international community to look at to recognize new countries. 'An overarching issue that is essential for understanding many pressing events of the day is the fraying standard geopolitical model of the world. This taken-for-granted model posits mutually recognized sovereign states as the fundamental building blocks of the global order. Many of these basic units, however, are highly fragile and a number have collapsed altogether. As a result, the next several posts will consider, and critique, the conventional state-based vision of the world. I am skeptical of the standard 'nation-state' model of global politics, as I think that it conceals as much as it reveals about current-day geopolitical realities. This model, evident on any world political map, rests on the idea that that the terrestrial world is divided into a set number of theoretically equivalent sovereign states.'

Using and thinking about maps and Geo spatial data - The process of thinking about and analyzing maps is quite complex. Looking at this map, you would assume that all is well, all is how it should be, nothing is distorted and each state is similar to the United States.

But, reflecting on maps involves deep thought and comparison. Each state is supposed to hold ultimate power over the full extent of its territory, possessing a monopoly over the legitimate use of force and coercion.

Such states, it turn, are supposed to recognize each other’s existence, and in so doing buttress a global order in which political legitimacy derives in part from such mutual recognition. The territories of such states are theoretically separated by clearly demarcated boundary lines, which are further solidified by international consensus, without overlap or other forms of spatial ambiguity. Standard political maps are flawed in how they make the world seem to be.

States are not all equal, and all neighboring states do not get along, possibly due to natural resources, ports, economics, language, culture, religion, nationality, etc. This picture slide show has to do with microstates, which are states or terratories that are both small in population and in size. These microstates are mostly near the sea, or even islands. Microstates have both pros and cons. Pros include having an abundant buffer zone: the sea. Another pro would be being alone, or isolated, (sometimes) this makes them free from other countries, which can be a pro and a con.

A con may be that the country may have a harder time accessing fresh water, and improving agriculture with little land. Unit 4 deals with Microstates.

Microstates are discussed in Unit 4, and all of these are examples of Microstates. Microstates have many pros and cons listed above. Why is this happening now? As climate change threatens polar ice caps, some see the receding ice as an economic and political opportunity.

Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland) and the U.S. Are all seeking to in the Arctic. When trapped under ice, extracting resources is cost prohibitive, but the melting sea ice will make the Arctic's resources all the more valuable ( including the expanded shipping lanes).

Even a global disaster like climate change can make countries behave like jackals, ready to feast on a dead carcass. For more, read this.

The video discusses a big topic in discussion today - Who really owns the North Pole? Although the North Pole is uninhabited, many countries have claimed to take ownership of the vast majority of land (or, ice). Canada has already claimed that the North Pole is part of its nation. Russia has put up Russian flags on the North Pole (such as underwater) but does that really make North Pole a Russian territory? The media plays a role in this by offering different opinions on who should and who deserves the right to own the North Pole.

You might read a Canadian article that lists all the outright reasons why the North Pole is or deserves to be a Canadian territory. In my opinion, I don't understand how the United nations can be seen as an entity that, essentially, controls who would have rights to a place like the North Pole(technically, not owned by anyone). I, naively, understand the basics of the U.N. In short, it is an organization that was formed, post-WW I or II, as a governing board for world-issues. With that being said, how can they believe that their 'law' is the all-powerful one?

If I'm a leader of a country who is not a member of the U.N., do I really care what they say? I just find it odd that this narrator speaks about the issue while holding the U.N. As a supreme authority. I know that this video is just a quick fun type of video but it leaves me with wanting to hear the perspective of a non-U.N.

But a very interesting topic, none the less. Countries occasionally choose to move their capital cities to a region of the country where they want to promote growth. A new capital such as the one being considered in Argentina, would be called by geographers a forward capital. Although that term is not used in the article, it is one of the few examples of a forward capital being discussed a news article and it nicely discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of forward capitals and the impacts they can have of regional growth, regime stability and the political organization of space. This article discusses how there is a chance that the capital city in Argentina can change from Buenos Aires to a smaller city called Santiago Del Estero which is in the middle-north of the country. Many say this move can heal the divide between the two cities but the bigger picture it that it'll make it a lot worse.

I wasn't aware that moving capital cities is actually a more common thing than we think. Buenos Aires is very over populated which is one of the reasons for wanting to move it. The major problem is an outcry from the people living in those cities and rebelling against this which could cause the government more problems. Very interesting article on capital city moves in this century. It also works for capital cities in the US that are rural in nature and away from the bright city lights.

The plus side is that capital cities located within the most populated areas of a country or state will be under intense scrutiny to do the right thing and politicians will be held accountable for their actions. Doing business in the place where you live usually has this effect. The negative aspect of moving to a rural area is that politicians can govern in relative anonymity away from the hustle and bustle of the big city.

There is also a fear factor in South American countries that we in the US don't face; coups that will overthrow governments if they don't do the right thing. A protest in Buenos Aires for instance will carry much more weight than a protest in the rural setting of Santiago del Estero. National capitals are symbols of identity for countries, and moving them constitutes altering said symbol dramatically. It is a decision that should not be made lightly, as it does have consequences, and this should be kept in mind by Argentine legislators as they debate moving their capital. I did not agree with the author's assertion that shifting the capital away from major population centers decreases the government's ability to effectively lead; look at the United States, Brazil, Canada, Australia, etc. All of these nations are enormous in size, with urban populations scattered in all corners of their borders, yet their governments are still able to govern faraway urban centers effectively. I think his claim is right within the context of Argentina's history and the reality that Buenos Aires is a 'super city' in much the same way that Mexico City is; to move the government away from the nation's only enormous urban center would be to suggest that the government is scared of its own people, and would almost undoubtedly lead to increased corruption.

However, to make a blanket statement that this is true for all countries is absurd. I, for one, and interested in seeing if the move takes place. Perhaps the move would do the nation some good. However, I have a feeling that the problems the Argentine government are trying to run away from, and that the populace are protesting about, will only get worse with increased space between the ruling body and its constituents. The UK flag is known for representing a union between England and Scotland. It's known as the 'Union Jack.'

The white on the UK flag represents peace peace and honesty and the blue represents loyalty and truth. It's a shame that those two colors have to change to Black and Yellow which I don't know what those colors would represent. If you put a Scottish flag with a UK flag, you won't find any yellow or black so I believe that Scotland is trying to exclude England and Scotland's alike colors such as blue and white and try to create a stronger equal union with England. It is interesting to see how globalization does as much to bring us together as it does to rip us apart. The exchange of ideas, goods, and people has hugely impacted the lives of everyday citizens and the nations that they call home, where divisions among people are felt more keenly as the competition in today's global economy grows stronger. Catalonia, the region that has done much to keep the economy of the Spanish nation afloat, and Catalans are eager to shed the 'dead weight' they feel they are carrying; the Basque region has long since demanded its independence, and we have already seen the fracturing of the Balkans. In some instances, perhaps separation is for the best.

However, I feel like these movements are the result of knee-jerk reactions to the current economic climate and deep, underlying hatreds that have no place in the current world order. Spain has been one nation for hundreds of years, as has the United Kingdom; to suddenly dissolve these unions in the name of century-long feuds seems not only unnecessary, but almost child-like. There is enough hatred in the world- why let us continue to divide amongst ourselves when history has shown that people in these regions can coexist and can consistently pull through these difficult periods. It is one thing to be proud of being Scottish- it is another to ignore the economic and political realities of what Scottish independence would bring for its people for the sake of this nationalist sentiment. I, for one, was relieved to see Scotland vote to remain a member of the UK. Separatist movements across the continent have been quieted, if only for another few years.

'Weak and failing states pose a challenge to the international community. In today’s world, with its highly globalized economy, information systems and interlaced security, pressures on one fragile state can have serious repercussions not only for that state and its people, but also for its neighbors and other states halfway across the globe.

The Fragile States Index (FSI), produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure.' How can political stability and security be measured? What constitutes effective governance? The Fragile States Index (formerly known as the Failed States Index) is a statistical ranking designed to measure the effective political institutions across the globe. There are 12 social, economic, and political/military categories that are a part of the overall rankings and various indicators are parts of the metrics that are a part of this index are: SOCIAL.Demographic Pressures.Refugees/IDPs.Group Grievance.Human Flight and Brain Drain ECONOMIC.Uneven Economic Development.Poverty and Economic Decline POLITICAL/MILITARY.State Legitimacy.Human Rights and Rule of Law.Public Services.Security Apparatus.Factionalized Elites.External Intervention Tags:,.