Talk:Party system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

party system

Someone needs to do something where I inserted the several question marks (at the end of the main [2nd] paragraph under "U.S. Models"). It is an incomplete sentence, but I added question marks instead of deleting it because it looks like somebody was starting to type something that didn't get finished.Shanoman 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Many textbooks?[edit]

The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year.

Then why, pray tell, does Fifth Party System only have 52 hits in Google Books; some of them one essay in a collection or an entry in a glossary? For comparison, there are four times as many books with "Political Science" in the title (most of them look like textbooks) which mention New Deal (only three of them mention the FPS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Google does not have good access to most textbooks. I actually looked at 8 recent pool sci textbooks and each talked about Party Systems. Some had more historical details and some had very little history.Rjensen 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
for a detailed bibliography with many refs to 5th ps see [1] Rjensen 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

standard usage in political science[edit]

The Party Sytems model is used in many college-level textbooks: for example: American Politics, Second Edition William Lasser, [2] Chapter Nine: Political Parties
It's also used in the major journals in both history and political science:
  • PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
  • Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
  • The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
  • Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
  • The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
  • Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
  • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
  • Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
  • Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
  • PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
  • Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
  • The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
  • The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413

Rjensen 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And we note, by the bibliography, in Richard Jensen's papers. I know it has been used in a couple dozen journal articles; although, if this were indeed a "major" topic, there would be many more than this remarkably small collection over three decades. If I denied this, I would be putting the article up for deletion. But enough of the vanity editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

no conflict of interest[edit]

There is no conflict of interest--none of the editors has any financial or other interest in any statement made here. PManderson has a conflict of interest inasmuch as he repeatedly insists that his own knowledge of political history should trump all the experts listed here. Rjensen 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual interest is sufficient for the tag. This is a vanity article by Prof. Richard Jensen, who has published largely in this fragment of political science, and is one of the "experts" so airily designated by Rjensen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

US-only/expand article[edit]

The article right now is centered about the US situation - it's should be expanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.228.248 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical system, the US system and the British system[edit]

"In most democracies the electorate votes for a party. The party members develop an agenda, and nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda. The party is funded by a nominal membership fee, and contributions from the state for the cost of campaigning. The contribution may be in relation to the membership, the votes in the previous election, or similar. The party is not allowed to receive other contributions, a rule intended to prevent plutocracy."

Is it really the case that in most democracies, parties are not allowed to receive other contributions? At least in Norway, which I know best, parties can accept funding from other sources than those two mentioned in the text, including trade unions, business associations and wealthy persons. Do we have any sources stating that this is illegal in most democracies? --213.236.196.39 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete section. this is original research poorly done-- no sources are given and there are all these false statements (like--The British system is a mix of the US and the so-called "typical system"; or US system was "designed for a situation without parties" --simply false) . Or, in typical system the parties "nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda" -- as opposed to who has blocs of power inside the party? or "parties may be grass-roots organizations with a bottom-up decision-making process" (like who??); or try this: "The platform of the party is written by the winning candidate (in presidential elections; in other elections no platform is involved)." the platform is written separately and before the candidate is chosen (cf 1864 when it blew up for McClellan); yes there are platforms for state parties. This is all garbled: "The primary elections in the main parties is organized by the states, who also registers the party affiliation of the voters (this also makes it easier to gerrymander the congressional districts)." the primary has zero connection to the gerrymander. Some states register by party, others do not. The closed/open primary system is not described & independents are ignored. The reason the section is not sourced is that scholarly books don't make these mistaken claims. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)