Mass media describes channels that reach broad audiences with information and entertainment. It covers print, broadcast, and digital platforms, all aimed at communication with the general public. That makes it the best fit for the idea of a collection of all media forms that inform the public, since it encompasses newspapers, TV, radio, magazines, and online outlets alike. The other terms are more limited: news media refers specifically to outlets that report current events; social media covers online platforms where people create and share content; broadcast media is a subset of mass media that uses radio and television to transmit.

The form being described is a caucus. In a caucus, party members gather in a town-hall style meeting to discuss and debate candidates, persuade others, and then align with preferred contenders. Delegates are often selected based on those alignments, sometimes through rounds of realignment, rather than through a single, secret ballot on a specific day. This deliberative, meeting-based process is typically used to choose delegates for the party’s national convention and is usually associated with presidential nominating cycles. By contrast, primaries are regular elections with secret ballots held on a day across a state, and conventions refer to the larger party gathering where the nomination is formally ratified, not the local nomination process itself. Nomination meetings are not the standard term for this described process.

Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey design hinges on how data are gathered over time. In a cross-sectional design, you collect data from a sample at one point in time, giving a snapshot of variables across individuals. This approach is efficient and good for estimating how widespread certain characteristics are or how variables relate to one another at that moment, but it doesn’t show how people or outcomes change over time or establish the sequence of events. In contrast, a longitudinal design follows the same individuals across multiple points in time. This allows you to observe how people change, whether an early measure predicts later outcomes, and how relationships between variables unfold over time. It provides richer insights into development and causality, though it requires more time and resources and can face challenges like participant drop-out and repeated testing effects. So, cross-sectional collects data at one point in time, while longitudinal collects data from the same individuals over time to observe change. The other statements either reverse the time frame, claim they’re the same, or incorrectly label longitudinal as always experimental.

Electoral votes can be allocated in different ways; when the allocation depends on who wins individual districts and the overall state, you’re looking at the district system. In this arrangement, each congressional district awards one electoral vote to the candidate who wins that district, and the remaining two electors go to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. This is the method used by Maine and Nebraska. The phrase in the question matches this approach, which contrasts with winner-take-all (where all votes go to the statewide winner) and with proportional representation (which would allocate votes roughly in line with overall party shares) or with simply describing districts as units without specifying the allocation rule. So the district system best fits the scenario described.