比赛规则：

1. 将发布的英文原文译为中文，点击“作业卡”提交译文。

2. 每位参赛者只能以一段译文参赛。【在截稿前请不要将译文发至留言评论处，发至该处的译文不能参与评比。】

3. 作业请勿以图片形式提交。【图片将无法参与评比，如果超过字数，请到微信公号留言。】

4. 下周一（2019年4月22日）16点截止参赛，周四公布编辑部筛选出的优秀译文接受读者投票，周六截止投票。

5. 点评专家将结合读者投票选出本期擂台的优胜译文，周日微信公众号公布结果，《英语世界》2019年第7期将登载本期擂台赛果及点评文。

6. 优胜者将获得《英语世界》2019年第7期杂志1本（加盖《英语世界》编辑部章）及当期聚焦栏目配套音频免费收听码。

7. 比赛未尽事宜概以本刊最终解释为准。

比赛原文：

Parties and Presidency (II)

That being said, the reverse case is not necessarily true. When the incumbent party is doing alright, the country will still hear out the other side and can be convinced that they can do better. The willingness to change who holds the reins when the incumbent party has done well seems dependent on how recently and severely the challenger party screwed up the last time they had the power. If it’s seen as particularly bad and still too recent you might get a 20 year rule like the Democrats had after Hoover, or a 12 year rule like Republicans had after Carter. When times are good and the challenger party’s last attempt wasn’t too bad, you get a closer election that is more dependent on the candidates than the historical trend (e.g. Nixon vs. Kennedy, Bush vs. Gore).