From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Truly I don't think it's right for different people who believe in two different things to join together, because it will cause more violence in the world.Its really a question to have bipartisan system in order to serve people better.second,every 2 years every house reps,6 years senator also almost every year local gov time ,concentrated effort for the citizen of the u.s.a.what about presidential election?one of the most important independent spirit is equality.then currrent votig system is not edequate to reflect all the voters right.

Removed the reference to Canada as we currently have three political parties - Conservative, Liberal and NDP (Center, Left and Lefter). Urbanriot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Tagging NPOV. This article has a distinct liberal slant (one which I happen to agree with, but nonetheless a slant). (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the discussion is about. Do y'all disagree with the definition of the word bipartisan btw not bypartisan which the first writer specified. If so then write about that, not all this other garbage. Please either get this word defined only not a bunch of partisan retoric crazy talk.

Dujulan -- (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above writer may be referring to items such as the paragraph from the Huffington Post article which is not based in fact, but is an editorial opinion slamming Republicsns. That has no place on an encyclopedic site and should ABSOLUTELY be deleted, just as it should if they had linked a bash of bipartisanship from a Republican perspective. The paragraph is cited as a political analysts observation of bipartisanship but is actually just an attempt to insult Republicans (and in truth, Democrats too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSG314 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


This article is starting to get cluttered. It needs to be divided into suggestions. I will do this in a couple days if it hasn't been fixed by then, but we need to have this sorted out. I propose the following sections be made in this layout: General Information Advocacy -In the United States Criticisms

As of now, the article is needlessly US-centric, and is getting very messy. I recommend all quotes either be removed, moved to references, or moved to Wikiquote.

Omniferous (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree about clutter and need for sections. As I wrote on your talk page, bipartisanship is a phenomenon of two-party systems of which there are only a few in the world, such as in the US, so I think it's appropriate to have a US focus. Or else possibly the article should be renamed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain what we would rename the page to, but I agree that the page does need to talk about the United States, being one of the most obvious examples. Still, while I think it is reasonable to use US-related references as evidence, I think most of the stuff on the page that is specifically talking about the US could go in its own section. Note that I added the globalize tag not because I thought we addressed the United States too much, but because most of the definition was comprised of United States information, rather than viewing the subject impartially as an idea, then applying it to the United States. For instance, I think the first two paragraphs are great as-is, but the third is completely unique to US history. Another good example of this would be the following sentence from the article: "After the U.S. election of 2010, with sizeable gains by Republicans in the House and Senate, analyst Charles Babington in the Associated Press suggested that both parties remained far apart on major issues such as immigration and Medicare while there may be chances for agreement about lesser issues such as electric cars, nuclear power, and tax breaks for businesses; Babington was not optimistic about chances for bipartisanship on major issues in the next few years." Obviously the article does not mean Malta can't have bipartisanship just because the United States can't get along.
Similarly, it is also possible to view bipartisanship in the context of a multi-party system, but that is usually in advocacy of a two-party system (e.g.: the article suggests major parties in Britain have been known to align to put down smaller parties, effectively turning things into a two-party race or vote), which has the same disadvantages as a two-party system itself, which can be found on the proper page. Omniferous (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I generally agree with your views. I think you should rework the article along the lines you suggest. I may try to add stuff later. When working on a revamp of the article two-party system, I found there were two basic views, like you said above: the strict two-party (in which third party candidates have no realistic chance, whether by structure or habit), and the sense of two main parties which dominate, but others have varying degrees of peripheral influence. I'm not sure which view prevails overall but I guess we need to be aware of both senses of the term. But this impacts bipartisanship too -- like, if two dominant parties work together, is that bipartisanship? I guess we should go by what the mainstream view is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

--US text-centric-issue-- I'm removing the "US-centric" tag for this reason: bipartisanship applies to situations where there are two-party systems; and there are few two-party systems around the world, and the US is one of the few examples (see Two party system. So, it seems reasonable to focus on the US and US politics when talking about bipartisanship; this issue doesn't play out to the same extent in multiparty systems. So, to criticize this article as being "US focused" doesn't make sense; it would be like tagging the article "Mississippi River" with a similar tag because there were too many mentions of the US. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011