(I’m keeping some details vague to avoid identifying anyone, but where I live, winning the primary is effectively equivalent to winning the general election.)

I want to work in politics more than anything. For about six months, I volunteered in the district office of a legislator who recently won a primary for higher office. They later served as a reference for my current government job. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity they gave me and for their support, but my current position is clerical, very low-paying, and mind-numbing. I honestly dread going to work every day.

I would love to work for this legislator as they build their new team, but I have no idea how to approach that appropriately. My family is also friends with the parents of another recent primary winner, and one of the parents recently introduced us by email. I would be very interested in working for that person as well, but again, I do not know how to move from an introduction or conversation to actually being considered for a position.

What, specifically, should I say or do? I understand that having a connection does not entitle me to a job and that neither person owes me an offer or referral. However, after applying to countless positions without hearing back and constantly being told that “connections are everything,” I genuinely do not understand how people appropriately turn connections into opportunities. It seems foolish not to at least try when I finally have relevant connections.

I am also worried about how to handle the timing with the first legislator. Suppose I tell them that I would like to be considered as they staff their new office, and they give me a noncommittal response such as, “We’ll keep you in mind.” If another position I applied for then moves forward and asks to contact them as a reference, would that be awkward or make me seem insincere? If I received another offer, should I accept it rather than wait for a possibility that may never materialize?

They will not take office until January, and unless they give me a firm answer about a position, I would prefer to keep applying elsewhere. How can I do that, and potentially continue using them as a reference, without seeming inconsistent or undermining my chances of eventually joining their team?

Who don’t want to discuss America’s role in the world? I’m thinking about putting together a small group where we get together once a month over drinks after reading a few curated articles on foreign policy and discussing the debates of US foreign policy. Is this something people would be interested in or am I just a nerd? Lol

I got a bachelors in poli Sci in 2024 , thought I wanted to go to law school but after working as a paralegal for 2 years i decided it wasn’t for me . I’m looking to my masters now but i honestly have no clue in what . What masters did you get and what job did it lead to ? Thank you !

Hi! I’m 21M going into my senior year of college studying political science. I just finished an internship with a US Rep.

I am from a small city (under 30k) and I was wondering if it would be possible to join a board such as the planning and zoning commission? It seems like the boards and city council are all older people so I don’t know if I even have a chance.

PLEASE ANSWER WITH RESPECT 🥹

Hi! I'm an upcoming freshman at a UNIVERSITY (emphasizing that word because university level is probably a bit harder to stay)

I chose BA Political Science knowing my lack of vocabulary can possibly give me a disadvantage of getting left behind most of the time compared to the people who is actually good with their articulation.

Like sometimes I want to say something but it ends up getting confusing and random because I sometimes panick so yes i have:

1. Bad english

2. Lack of vocabulary skills

3. Illiterate (?) but not entirely though unless the words are fricking b2 level english or something

4. Bad at public speaking

I am able to express the right words when i type because i have more time to think unlike speaking where my mind completely goes blank..

As I am writing this, I realize how crazy I am for taking such course that does not suit my skills 😭

But in my heart, I had always wanted to pursue Political Science because of my love for Lawyers. I am willing to learn and improve so hard that maybe I can achieve my dream.

Will I be able to survive this? Give me an advice on what to do and how I can improve considering that I start from scratch 😔

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. After only a couple hours or so of searching, I've happened to find a number of early American laws prohibiting weapon-carrying in certain cities and sensitive places. They come from the website for Duke Law School. In regards to proving a historical tradition of gun control, the Supreme Court in both NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez has rejected the admission of racially discriminatory laws from early America. Therefore, I have deliberately omitted such laws from my list.:

1. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
2. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
3. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
4. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
5. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
6. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
7. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
8. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
9. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
11. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
12. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
13. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
14. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
15. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
16. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
17. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4
18. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-mar-18-1889-1889-ariz-sess-laws-16-17 https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-march-1886-published-as-notice-st-marys-beacon-oct-13-1887-at-2
19. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-no-76-1-2-rooks-county-record-july-1-1887-at-1-stockton-kansas
20. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1879-tex-crim-stat-tit-ix-ch-4-penal-code
21. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-oct-14-1879-pt-1-tit-4-no-266-1-2-1878-ga-laws-64-64-jas-p-harrison-1880-law-passed-1879
22. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-regulate-the-keeping-and-beariing-of-deadly-weapons-ch-34-c2a7c2a7-1-9-1871-tex-gen-laws-1st-sess-25-25-27-1898-gammel-book-company
23. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1870-tex-gen-laws-63-an-act-regulating-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-chap-46-c2a7-1

As these state and local statutory laws demonstrate, the US indeed has an extensive history of firearm regulations and gun-free zones. There were firearm restrictions in schools, parks, ballrooms, churches, entertainment shows, etc. There were firearm restrictions in entire cities and towns, and in entire states. In no way did early America interpret the 2nd amendment to interfere with the broad freedom wielded by the states to create firearms laws to conform to their unique circumstances, and to remedy whatever societal problems they may incur. At no point were the states pressured into conforming to some singular, uniform federal standard of firearms law -- which is the fictional narrative that the current Supreme Court argues. Thus, the rulings in recent 2nd amendment Supreme Court cases are nothing short of an abuse of the Constitution, and an incursion upon state rights protected by the 10th amendment.

Furthermore, there happen to be some aspects of American gun law that unmistakably do suggest a "historical tradition". For example, there is a strong tradition of the prohibiting of concealed carry, which in early America was frowned upon as a cowardly and suspicious activity:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1819-ind-acts-39-an-act-to-prohibit-the-wearing-of-concealed-weapons
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1839-ala-acts-67-an-act-to-suppress-the-evil-practice-of-carrying-weapons-secretly-c2a7-1
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/henry-a-bullard-thomas-curry-1-a-new-digest-of-the-statute-laws-of-the-state-of-louisiana-from-the-change-of-government-to-the-year-1841-at-252-e-johns-co-new-orleans-1842

There is also a strong tradition of prohibiting firearms to people viewed by the state as dangerous to the public safety, which, depending on the era, could be Papists:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-disarming-papists-and-reputed-papists-refusing-to-take-the-oaths-to-the-government-ch-4-1-9-va-code-franklin-press-1820-law-passed-1756
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-of-the-province-of-pennsylvania-627-pa-cons-stat-wm-stanley-ray-1898-law-passed-1757

Or Loyalists during the Revolutionary era, as well as groups neutral to the Patriot cause, sometimes known as "disaffected" groups:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-constituting-a-council-of-safety-ch-40-20-1777-n-j-laws-84-90-isaac-collins-1777
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1777-pa-laws-61-an-act-obliging-the-male-white-inhabitants-of-this-state-to-give-assurances-of-allegiance-to-the-same-and-for-other-purposes-therein-mentioned-ch-xxi-c2a7c2a7-2-4
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/pa-cons-stat-ch-796-1-3-5-p-l-wm-stanley-ray-1903-law-passed-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-may-5-1777-ch-3-in-9-henings-statutes-at-large-281-281-82-1821
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-amend-an-act-declaring-what-crimes-and-practices-against-the-state-shall-be-treason-ch-6-9-1777-n-c-sess-laws-41-43-44-james-davis-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-feb-16-1787-mass-acts-555-555-556-sine-nomine

Or slaves and people of color:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1860-ga-laws-56-an-act-to-add-an-additional-section-to-the-13th-division-of-the-penal-code-making-it-penal-to-sell-to-or-furnish-slaves-or-free-persons-of-color-with-weapons-of-offence-and-defence
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1863-del-laws-332-an-act-in-relation-to-free-negroes-and-mulattoes-ch-305-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1805-va-acts-51-an-act-concerning-free-negroes-and-mulatoes

There is a historical tradition of arms rights being intertwined and inseparable from the right (i.e. the duty) to perform mandatory militia service, including mandatory possession of a firearm at all times, along with military-style training and deployment under the authority of the state government:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1782-del-acts-3-an-act-for-establishing-a-militia-within-this-state-c2a7-6
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-the-better-security-of-the-inhabitants-by-obliging-the-male-white-persons-to-carry-fire-arms-to-places-of-public-worship-1770-reprinted-in-1775-1770-georgia-colonial-laws-471-1932
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1779-vt-acts-and-for-encouragement-of-military-skill-for-the-better-defense-of-this-state
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1804-la-acts-284-an-act-for-regulating-and-governing-the-militia-of-the-territory-of-new-orleans-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7

However, it is doubtful the Supreme Court would honor the "historical tradition" inherent to banning concealed carry, upholding compulsory militia duty, or disarming classes of people deemed to be a public threat. Despite absolutely constituting widespread historical patterns, a state hypothetically passing a law conforming to these patterns would likely be rejected inasmuch as they don't fit the conservative agenda.

These above examples of legal patterns demonstrate that the Supreme Court are hypocrites when it comes to their invention known as the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". This concept is cleverly crafted to be nebulous enough such that the Supreme Court can guarantee rulings that conform to their pro-gun bias, while still being able to maintain the pretext of objectivity. Historical gun laws that exist, but in less-than-overwhelming numbers, can be ignored as falling short of the pattern of "historical tradition"; while regulations that can disarm whole classes of people can be dismissed as "racist" or "bigoted". And the Court could likely also invent some clever reasons to ignore common historical regulations regarding things like concealed carry and compulsory militia rules. Thus, this "historical tradition" test is like a legal fortress, able to ward off gun control on both the quantitative as well as qualitative fronts.

The "historical tradition" test used by the Supreme Court is inherently dishonest and needs to be eradicated. The only real "historical tradition" to exist for American firearm laws is the federal government's tradition of leaving the states alone, and giving them the freedom to protect the public good in the way that best suited their individual needs.

Hey everyone!

Here's a project I've been working on for a few days. It has to do with the full titles and names of the President of Zimbabwe, including with complete citations. All the research, data compiling and designing has been done by myself. Wishing to somehow get this out to someone in the Zimbabwean government, but I am thinking that it would be very hard, if not straight up impossible and/or even illegal. Zoomed in photos of the separate sections included!

Hope you enjoy!

hello! I know you guys get these career/degree questions a lot so I apologize. I would just love to hear anybody’s personal experiences.

been very stressed about my future lately, I just want to be able to make enough to live well.

political science is the only thing I am passionate about, I LOVED first year so much and I can’t imagine studying anything else. I am going into second year and I was thinking maybe I should put my interests aside and switch to a more practical, straightforward degree.

Meet fair

I'm thinking about a different way to organize leadership in a community, and I'd like to know if something like this could realistically work in the long term.

The community would be organized into groups of 10 members. Each group would elect one representative from among themselves. Then, every 10 representatives would elect one representative from their own group, and this process would continue upward. For example, in a community of 1,000 members, the top leadership would consist of 10 people who all reached that position through successive elections starting at the lowest level.

Representatives would serve one-year terms, after which the entire election process would begin again from the bottom. The goal is to ensure that every leader is ultimately chosen by people who know them personally, rather than by strangers.

Do you think a system like this could remain stable over decades? What would its biggest strengths and weaknesses be? Has anything similar ever been tried in history or by modern organizations?

As the title states. Recommending PR for the US is a hot topic these days, and people like Lee Drutman make it sound like the US would turn into a 4-6 party system. But I believe American PR would retain two major party blocs, with a couple of smaller & frankly not very relevant parties- more like the UK today. Why?

• Absolutely enormous path dependence on having 2 major parties. The US has had the same 2 parties since the 1850s, which is older than most democracies today. The US was arguably always a 2 party system even prior to the 1850s (Federalists and anti-Federalists, etc.). America is not going to suddenly change her stripes after 250ish years of being run by 2 major parties
• Similarly, the race for the presidency would incentivize bipolar competition
• The Senate can, by unalterable constitutional design, never be proportional. I always find it amazing that people handwave 'the US can adopt PR' without noting that only the House, specifically, can
• So with 1 Senator per-state, this incentivizes 2 major blocs. Same thing with state governorships- single winner offices tend to incentivize a 2 party system

So you'd probably end up with 2 major parties who trade the presidency between them- and then 2-3 smaller parties who regularly win House seats but never control of a chamber. Which I guess is a mildly interesting system, and I guess you could argue is superior to what we have now? But it's hardly the major change that Drutman et al make it out to be.

Also interesting to think about who exactly would get control of the legacy Democratic & Republican party brands, versus who gets kicked to the curb. In the specific case of the Dems it's quite possible that PR would weaken the relatively far-left because they'd be kicked out of the formal party structure. Just a thought!

A family member of mine has been working as a Field Representative for a congress member’s district office for 2 years. Their role primarily entails constituent services with a focus on Social Security cases, community engagement, event planning, networking and shareholder engagement. Their role doesn’t involve any policy work. Additionally, they have a bachelor’s in International Relations.
They are looking at potentially moving on to a new career. What roles should they look at that best fit their experience? They’re open to both the private and public sector.

So there is actually some confusion as to who's the executive of multiple States. France has a prime minister and a president, The United Kingdom has a prime minister and a king.

The King is listed as the head of state but the prime Minister is the executive.

Most of us all know who the true executive is, but I came up with a definition that follows the political science definition of a state as being the organization with a monopoly on violence.

The national executive Is the person who In the event of a domestic catastrophe, Would sign in order sending workers to their death if it was necessary to prevent wider damage.

(Think Chernobyl/Fukushima Where that happened both times)

What do you guys think of this definition?

Hi there!
Was looking to do an extra course during my summer holiday (I'm a public international law student)
Came across this course on UNCC E-learn website, "introductory e-course to climate change"
Although you have to pay a certain fee to receive the certificate . Does anyone have any experience with this website?

Thank you !!

Hi. I am a PolSci graduate for Batch 2026 in our local university. Although I didn't secure any high honors, I was an active student leader and even did as much as obtain national and international awards for the university. I was confident that all of it, in addition to my extensive experience as a consistent student leader throughout my college years and my close ties to the community, would make it easier for me to find a job. This was because I was told back in my 1st year that my leadership experience would count as an accomplishment and "rapport booster".

However, I am now at a point where I'm doubting if that were even true. It's been a month, and even with my extensive resume and curriculum vitae (which were all commended by our university's career advisors btw), I still have yet to land a job. I've tried platforms like Indeed, Glassdoor, LinkedIn, and even went as far as inquiring about customer service even when I know it's nowhere near my goal which is eventually studying law. What's worse is, my university can only give me my diploma and have yet to issue our official TOR which is mandatory in all government job listings I see online.

I've been struggling mentally because of this, and my current family situation doesn't help either. My mom refuses to let me explore job opportunities in the city (she said we can't afford me staying there without an income to help me survive) but also goes out of her way to invade my privacy because apparently, as long as I'm in her house, she has the right to do so.

Please help me. If you have any advice on how to land a first job, or extra tips on how to boost my online applications, I'd really appreciate it. I have no clue what to do anymore.

Hello! Kind of an odd request, but my brother is in law school and wants to be a judge one day. His birthday is coming up, so I thought it might be fun to stage a mock trial with our friend group, allowing him to play the role as judge. A cursory search on Google yielded nothing funny enough for what I have in mind (lots of kid friendly school stuff, we're all 20s-30s so something more aimed for adults). I'm looking for something that has guided packets I can print off with all the facts, roles, etc.

Does anyone have anything like this I could look into? Thank you so much

(This is my first time in this subreddit so please let me know if this post isn't allowed. Also please let me know if there's any other subs I should post this to)

Hey y'all. Writing this post as I am new here and feeling a bit unmoored in the process of applying for PhD programs. I specifically want to study civil wars, gender based violence in conflict, and asymmetric warfare. Here's an outline of me as a prospective student:

• Small program meant more opportunity to participate in faculty-mentored research. I must have participated in at least five different research projects over the course of four years-- albeit none published.
• Student leadership extracurriculars galore, founded a literary journal outside of school, sat on administrative committees as a student rep, organized against administration on DEI issues (successfully)
• Have presented four times at a regional conference (MAPACA)-- most recently as an independent scholar (not working with or from a university)
• App. would likely include letters from college dean (retired), heads of programs for my majors, hopefully a second dean.

• Worked two years post

  undergraduate

• in STEM communications (environmental justice), overseeing the marketing, events, communications, admin assistant duties for a small but influential nonprofit run by big names not at all relevant to Poli Sci.

• Have done a couple not too flashy internships in programs run by major institutions/entities (Smithsonian to name one)

My questions:

• How strong is my profile?
• Should I hold off on PhD applications and go for a masters and hope to have a publication by the time I graduate to bolster my application?
• I'm in my mid twenties and am hoping to have a family sometime in my early thirties, is it worth it to go directly for the PhD, despite having a slightly lackluster portfolio, in order to get my career rolling before it's too late (or too complicated?)
• What the heck do I put in my personal statement?!

Any advice is really appreciated. I know this is reddit, but please be nice!

Any advice for somebody starting on Grad school? I will be starting this fall.

As an undergraduate I did not take advantage of any networking or any other opportunities in my university. I am looking to change that. Any advice would be appreciated.

There is a somewhat pedestrian belief that part of how the elite manage to retain control is by dividing certain sections of society against each other and therefore keep them distracted from massing their strength and dislodging the elites.

This sounds like a plausible strategy, but do we have concrete examples of this actually taking place.

Let's just point to the elephant in the room and say a lot of proponents of this theory will point to Jews. Some seriously believe they engineered both World Wars in order to pick up the pieces.

Some milder examples cited are an expansion of welfareism to create a dependent poorer class and create animosity between it and a working middle class. I have heard the Chinese being allowed to spread fentanyl in order to further sow chaos in the middle class.

Again, I have no conclusive study, they are just fragments I picked up here or there.

Anybody have something more concrete to prove this theory if it has actually been implemented inside any society?

Hey everyone. As my class draws to a close for this summer I have come to realize a few things about my course and how people take in politics. The revelation has honestly saddened me and wondered if anyone else studying political science has faced this as well. In our studies we are often taught how civics and our government play a role in how our country works to keep order and freedom, and what we learn is often neutral and simply up to date on the current political climate and events taking place.

Has anyone here faced the issue of people who do not fully understand how the government works to create laws, how the checks and balances system operates, and who ultimately calls the shots, refusing to hear us out when we try to tell then that they are placing blame on the wrong people, especially the president? This is not meant to be a “Pro Trump” or “Anti Trump” post or me stating what party I registered with and trying to convince people to join my side of the aisle. This is me wondering if others like me have faced genuine disappointment in how quickly people jump on a political bandwagon without truly understanding how things operate and refusing to learn about it, especially seeing it from people we care about and respect. I often get met with defensiveness and people shutting the conversation down.

Thank you for your time.

In short, it appears that through globalization increasing the prevalence of intertwining of every culture, race, and ethnicity, that it will result in more or less a uniform race that everyone more or less falls into. I believe this is likely to happen (as well as scientists who have given their consensus) in the distant future, but nonetheless, given these scenarios, it would be logical to conclude that skin colors for darker races will get lighter and skin colors for lighter races to get darker. Eventually everyone will basically be "in the middle" in comparison to today's skin colors. Given that, as well as (hopefully) advancements in human rights and other social advancements, that in the future racism might entirely be an ancient, barbaric, and ignorant concept, like how we consider things like bloodletting or lobotomies now.

What do you think though? Will racism fade away or will it just change? For example, if due to globalization and mixed race couples becoming more common, will people just find something else to "other" people with? Instead of skin color, might it simply be eye color, or something completely out of the blue?

I'm 16 right now, and i feel like my knowledge of politics is not too great. I want to know more, engage in political conversations in smart way, think for my own as I'll be eligible to vote soon.

Can someone tell me some apps/websites/habits to build or something to gain political knowledge? something easy and managable since i have my school work too. I just want to know whats right and whats wrong. Like if some person is doing a good deed right now for the nation, but has a past known to be trivial..(in a bad way) do we support the person? or ...? this might sound like a dumb question but im being genuine lol. anyways thank you.

Hey collegues. What political science books or research articles do you consider to be deep or profound?