Talk:Political party

Political Party material is shallow

Wikipedia is boldly launched on 'Political party' but there won't be any wind to move that discussion until the unique role of parties in America is cited. I'm uncertain how to 'edit' the existing articles because they are non sequiturs.

The role of any party worth it's formation is to gain and maintain political power. The first sentence of Wikipedia's party article sort of inches up to that but it's bloodless and only half right in the balance of the piece. It is as if Wikipedia doesn't think there is a constant battle to keep government in check. That was the role of political parties in America until 1948 when events unfolded that changed the political landscape in ways few can recall.

What happened was the passage by the national Democratic Party of the civil rights platform plank crafted by Hubert Humphrey. It was a bold and righteous act, so bold that it caused the walkout of the southern delegates -- mostly the incumbents of the South -- who knew or thought they could not bring the requirements back to their states. They formed the Dixiecrat party. It was generally conceded that Harry S Truman would lose the election to Dewey. But that didn't happen. The people of America voted forTruman and that civil rights plank.

The result little noted in history and even less in Wikipedia was that incumbents and power-holders began the systematic disassembly of both national parties. It's just about complete.

To put it as simply and plainly as I can, the platforms -- defined by Truman as "A Contract with the People" -- were formed to build winning coalitions. Making up the planks were interests as diverse as the nation itself, from labor to industrialists, from the medical profession to tobacco growers. The planks came from the smallest precincts to the largest, rural to cities. The deal was simple, If I vote for this party you will pass my plank! Politicians who ran under the party banner were committed to support the platform! If they did not they could be and sometimes were kicked out of the party. Simple as that.

So party discipline was the handle the people kept over elected governments at every level. After 1948 politicians openly acted to defy this system. They simply did not want "the people" telling them what to do. And, we have to think, that was where we got the space program that seems to have resulted in very little benefit to your average person at the cost of billions of dollars better spent on our decrepit educational systems.

If you read those last two paragraphs several times it might strike you as very obvious that when they killed the party system they didn't replace it with any power left in the hands of the folks in the precincts. Hence we do not have control of the government in this former democracy. Elections mean nothing in the present system of primaries where television ads are used to sell popular candidates long before the parties have any opportunity to craft the platforms of the days before 1948. That is not an accident and I think Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to put this up before the people if it wants to be an honest publication.

Thank you, Billeger Bill Eger <bill@hawaii-island.com>

I have tried to respond to the accusation of blandness and the lack of references by inserting James Madison's (and David Hume's) view of factions (parties)

Fenton Robb 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Parties & Colours

Under "parties and colors": exceptions to what? So far in the article before that point, the colors haven't been associated with any parties yet. -- John Owens 12:39 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Fixed. Kaihsu 18:09 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

In Commonwealth countries (well, at least in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) the "leftist" "progressive", or "labour" parties use red. "Rightist", "Conservative" parties use blue. I always assumed it was because it was thought that leftists are closer to communists than are rightists. In the USA it appears the convention is reversed when they speak of red and blue states. Should this be mentioned?Avalon 06:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Christian democracy

Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The Right & laissez-faire

"Right tends to favor laissez-faire" I read this statement throughout wikipedia, and in the united states I believe this is very untrue. What is normally called the "right" here, or conservatives, usually SAY they favor protectionist economic policies, whereas the left says they favor more socialist policies, but both sides end up DOING more laissez-faire style policies when they get into office.

The right wing as more than laissez-faire and fascism

The article implies that the right wing consists only of laissez-faire fundamentalists and fascists; however, being rather tired as I am, I can't manage to think of a term that would include more moderate conservative policies. Does anyone want to give me a hand by suggesting one and adding it to the list of right-wing political subgenres? Thanks. -- Batata Kartoffl

Non-partisan legislatures

Maybe we should mention non-partisan legislatures (like Nebraska or Jersey). Marnanel 13:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

666 votes

There is nothing funier then when the Christin Party gets 666 votes. As in the Faroese electin in 2004.

Criticisms and Supporting Arguments of the existence of the Political Party

It would be good to include a section criticising the existence of political parties.--Darrelljon 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Crticisms and Supports would be real nice --HoO8MyRiCe

"Britt is HOT! and so is sam " I could not relate this sentence to the political parties. Probably it is technical error.

Does anyone remember a study on party affiliation and values?

I recall hearing of a US study which suggested that people's values are influenced by the political party they identify with (Democrat or Republican), more than the other way around. Does anyone have a link, or remember any details of this? --Singkong2005 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template usable on articles

Template:Political party

I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep Cwolfsheep 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In a democracy, can only a electoral body be a party?

A dispute has developed concerning Socialist Convergence (Mexico); this is a organisation with the status of a national political association, a legal form for small organisations with more than 5,000 supporters which are preparing to become electoral alternatives. Can this be described as a party, and categorised as such in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't know/care, but we have a difficult conflict between two editors on this topic and I would welcome your guidance. --Duncan 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit conflicts about CS is only one of several pages touched by the issue. User:Rune.welsh has done edits on several edits on various articles on Mexican parties which are highly confusing. The fact that a party loses its electoral registration does of course not mean that it automatically ceases to function as a political party. In some cases the outcome is quite absurd (like Socialist Convergence or Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, organizations that obvioulsy keep on functioning as political parties, despite legal recognition), but in other cases I think that several edits made by the said user lead to uncertainty on whether several parties are defunct or not. This applies for example to Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution, Party of the Nationalist Society, Social Alliance Party, Mexican Democratic Party and Social Democracy (Mexico), where parties are put in the Category:Former political parties in Mexico without any clarification whether the parties ceased to exist or not. National Synarchist Union is put in the "Former parties" category, in spite of current signs of existence. --Soman 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that "official registration" is an incredibly poor way to determine whether or not a party is authentically a party. First, party registration varies greatly from country to country. In some countries, perhaps most notably my own, the United States of America, there is no formal electoral institute that the parties have to register with. In other countries, not only do parties have to register, but the bar is set so high that all sorts of parties are excluded from the "legitimacy" of being "official." For the sake of neutrality, even tiny parties with such little support that they can't get the mandated amount of signatures or whatever should be considered parties.

However, there's factor that troubles me: some parties are ideologically opposed to democracy and thus see participation in the democratic process as a sort of "sell-out." Obviously this would most likely be seen in hardline extremist parties, such as orthodox militant Marxist parties. Simply because they don't participate in electoral democracy as defined by the state does not make them any less a party, however. I don't know anything about Socialist Convergence (Mexico). Perhaps they don't participate in elections because they are ideologically against them, perhaps they don't participate because they know they would loose, perhaps it's a combination of the two. However, I am of the opinion that in most cases, we should probably err of the side of calling groups like that a party. --Descendall 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. In the particular example of Socialist Convergence and many of the orgs linked by Soman, they don't participate in elections because they can't do so by law. Maybe in other countries there are not set criteria of what a party is or is not, but it happens that in Mexico there are and as such they have to be made clear in the appropriate articles. I'm Mexico calling yourself a party does not automatically make you so and this is what some editors apparently don't want to accept. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Mexican state is the only source of guidance here. Nor, indeed, is electoral participation the defining feature of a party. Many communist parties do not stand in elections: the Communist Party of Great Britain, for example, has typically endorsed the Labour Party. But it clearly is a political power since its aim is to replace the governing power. Socialist Convergence may, or may not, be or become a party: but the test is not whether or nor it wins that label from the Mexican government. --Duncan 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Suggestion

I am no expert at any of this, (in fact, I am an Indepedent and stick with George Washington on the matter: SHOULD NOT EXIST!) but with all the information I am recently coming across (In government class), would it not help if you guys started a Wikiproject for all political theories, parties, and ideologies? Colonel Marksman 04:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of a political party

Please note revert wars at Popular Socialist Party (Mexico) and Popular Socialist Party of Mexico. User:Rune.welsh seems to maintain that only organization that pass the rather rigid registration process of the federal election institute can be considered as a political party, notwithstanding that there are thousands of political parties around the world which have no formal recognition at all. Particularily confusing are wordings of Rune.welsh like "Popular Socialist Party (Spanish: Partido Popular Socialista, PPS) was a communist party in Mexico.", which leads the reader to believe that the party is no longer communist rather than clarifying that it is a communist party that has lost its electoral registration. --Soman 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: intro paragraph

I came to this article expecting to find, at the very top, the definition of a political party. To my surprise, I found none at all—this should be rectified as per WP:LEAD. —Psychonaut 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the intro was deleted back in December, possibly by mistake. I have just restored it. —Psychonaut 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT

 This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my  

reasoning.

 I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and 

honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials, (at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', unconnected citizens),I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those who are served BY the public.

 This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, 

state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further, in any given election, one finds that typically 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%.

 It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the 

establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.

 So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, 

township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions, (besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this proposed experiment!).

 Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, 

to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:

  * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
  * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the  
       INCUMBENT and then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
  * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and, 
       IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
  * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the candidate who IS listed FIRST.
  * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.

 Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or 

the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Also, issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter....... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules above.

 If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents

will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?

 If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any 

specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a good chance of succeeding in holding public office?

 Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their 

fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?

 Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent

individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate,(since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?

 Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in 

what ways?

 As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for 

so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.

 The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

 The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.

 The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be

effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for far too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds.

  To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: 

      You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time

      You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time

      But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time

  The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power.