Talk:Non-partisan democracy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Michigan and Virginia

I took this out: "Residents of the states of Michigan and Virginia are not required to state an affiliation for a political party when registering to vote - unlike most states which require residents to specify whether they are Republican, Democrat, or another party."

I think some residents of those states got a little overzealous. I've never been affiliated with a party and I've lived in Alaska, Oregon, and Massachusetts, all of which allow this as an option. I also know from friends from North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maine that their states allows this. In fact, I've never heard of it not being allowed. If I had to guess, I'd say its the norm, but I'm not going to put that in there because I don't know. What I do know is that this is not limited to those to states and this paragraph misrepresents it as such. -Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.33.197 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All pro, no con?

I think the article in general is fine, but we may need a 'criticism' or 'disadvantages' section in order to balance it. E.Cogoy 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Countakeshi 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, it needs to be balanced, I'd rather move things into the text, so that the advantages and disadvantages are made clear in prose. This is more in line with Jimmy Wales' preferences for article formation anyway. No advantage or disadvantage should be highlighted or hidden by this process. Merely it should improve article flow. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microstates

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands operate a system very close to a non partisan system.--Darrelljon 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto

An anon just deleted Toronto from the examples, because the New Democratic Party of Canada runs candidates. To my understanding they do not do so officially, in that parties have no recognition in the system of government, acquire no funding, and are accorded no priviledge for having members elected. It might be fair to say it is informally partisan IF the council can be shown to be exercising block-voting or other practices of party-discipline. However, I'm not aware of this and it should be cited.

It does raise an interesting question about systems that are structurally non-partisan, but in practice are implemented in partisan ways. The US Presidency is (or was) structurally non-partisan. However, over time, it has evolved (devolved?) into a highly partisan office. We should try to find a way to represent de-jure and de-facto partisanship in some way that is still NPOV. I'm really unclear on how to do this. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "official recognition of parties" mean? Public funding of parties or lack of legally enforcible party discipline are very common in democratic representation systems, either partisan or non-partisan.

Democratic systems keep parties away from power - except elections. Parties excercising power are state-parties.

--peyerk (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proportional representation

The article says, "The system works with first past the post but is incompatible with proportional representation systems." I think, this is not correct. Voting could be by means of the Single Transferable Vote which requires no parties while at the same time it delivers proportional result. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinwilke1980 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cleanup and referencing

I'm going to start adding references and cleaning up. The article isn't in good shape as it stands. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while, and the article sorely lacks sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a copy-editor for cleanup. Several places say "nonpartisan" (without a dash) and other places say "non-partisan" (with a dash). Let's make that consistently say "nonpartisan" since "nonpartisan" is an entire legal word unto itself and is not a double-word which needs a dash to combine them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.147.8 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples - NGO's

I don't think the NGO part under Examples really fits in. It's not an NGO, it's the leadership of a sect - there is not parties or politics in that. It's a bad example and therefore should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.206.171 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Bahai example fits either. This page is about political parties, rather than factions within a religion. Let's remove the Bahai example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.147.8 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

several countries.. nonpartisan appoinments for presidents.... examples?

"Several countries with partisan parliaments use nonpartisan appointments to choose presidents."

Are there examples for this?--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so called popular democracies

wouldn't they techincally be non partision in nature? as they have banned all political parties, and their only party essenturally becomes the goverment? Such examples would be the USSR, other communist states, maybe even Lybia, and others.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV, sources

The article is practically unsourced! Selection of examples is random and concepts are unclear.

Some serious sources are necessary.

--peyerk (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense article

This article fails to provide a single source for the general usage of this term. The few sources provided has nothing to do with the term "non-partisan democracy". Even the wording of the description of the term in the introduction is nonsensical, and the article goes on to set up a number of fictional scenarios, as a kind of evidence for the existence of this term, without any sources provided as to when these scenarios are supposed to occur.

This article is pure trash and is either a deliberate hoax or someones fixed ideas in the form of original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Non-partisan democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040811164634/http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/learning/history.htm to http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/learning/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A contradictory sentence

The sentence "De jure nonpartisan systems exist in several Persian Gulf states, including Oman and Kuwait; the legislatures in these governments typically have advisory capacity only,..." is a paradox. Legislatures have legislative capacity by the very definition of their name, otherwise they are no legislatures. I am not sure whether it is true, but maybe there are elected parliaments who have no legislative capacity, maybe the parliaments have only advisory capacity, and maybe the monarchs or their cabinets have the legislative capacity. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) This may be non-partisan, but this is not democracy. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Baha'i New World Order

I have added a link to the article New_world_order_(Baháʼí) as an example of a nonpartisan system proposed for adoption by nations and a potential future world government. However, that article at this time doesn't really elaborate on the nonpartisan nature of that model, so perhaps the link is not really suitable until such details are added to the article or a better reference can be found. 196.249.100.138 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]