Jump to content

Talk:Politics of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconUnited States C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States is not a Democracy

Just a slight nit pick, the article mentions the United States being a democracy, but that is not correct. The United States is a Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.115.72 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'democracy' implied by conversational English includes the specific definition of a 'Democratic Republic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore should lean more formal than conversational. I think the references should be changed where appropriate to say democratic republic, or at the very least just republic. MQinator (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In formal language, the term "democracy" also encompasses "democratic republic." The attempt to remove the word "democracy" from descriptions of the American political system is nothing more than right-wing newspeak. Acsenray (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not newspeak. It's plain English / political terminology. The US is a democracy when discussing broadly (as against Chinese one-party rule or the Saudi kingdom;) it is specifically a democratic republic when identifying the form of its government (as against Athens or Rome.) So it's appropriate for some places in the article but not others. -LlywelynII (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RS viewpoint is what Wikipedia gives: "Most scholars believe the United States is a democracy." says a leading pol sci textbook, Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, Jerry Goldman The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World(2008) Page 31. </ref>. A team of prominent historians says "Given that the United States is a democracy..." Meg Jacobs, William J. Novak, Julian E. Zelizer, eds. The democratic experiment: new directions in American political history (2003) p 277. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im pretty sure that no state could be a 'true' democracy if we worry too much about specifics. I can't think of a single place of significance where all citizens vote for all issues. And by this definition, the electoral college in the US is the antithesis of a democracy; Hard to call a country a 'true' democracy when someone getting the most votes isnt necessarily a win. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly non-necessary sentence

Please forgive my level of comprehension but I really couldn't get hold of what the sentence "The United States is one of the world's developed democracies where third parties have the least political influence." wants to imply and what purpose it serves considering the flow of the article. I hesitantly guess there was a "one of the world's most developed democracies" in between there and despite the sentence being biased that way, probably it had a point then. I guess somebody gotta clarify this sentence. Cheers. --Stultiwikiatext me 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to better reflect the content below. Next question: Do we have an adequate reference for this sentence: "In the absence of multi-seat congressional districts, proportional representation is impossible and third parties cannot thrive."? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading?

Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading.

  • Book Review: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer; American Politics and the Second Gilded Age by Robert C. Lieberman (Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Columbia University) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2011; excerpt ...

    Hacker and Pierson refreshingly break free from the conceit that skyrocketing inequality is a natural consequence of market forces and argue instead that it is the result of public policies that have concentrated and amplified the effects of the economic transformation and directed its gains exclusively toward the wealthy. Since the late 1970s, a number of important policy changes have tilted the economic playing field toward the rich. Congress has cut tax rates on high incomes repeatedly and has relaxed the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, resulting in windfall profits for the wealthiest Americans.

See Reagan Administration and Bush tax cuts, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial market, Glass-Steagall Act, Conservatism in the United States, Great Depression in the United States and Late-2000s financial crisis, Tea Party movement and Occupy movement in the United States (Occupy Wall Street and Occupy movement), ...

Also see Inside Job (film), Plutocracy and Wealth 99.181.130.94 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]