|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Media||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:|
I have attempted to introduce a definition that distinguishes campaigning (aimed at involving large numbers of people in bringing about political change) from lobbying (direct relationships between interest groups and politicians).
This is a substantial change from the original article. I think it's valuable and I have some personal experience of the area. However I have no idea what, if any, academic consensus about this there is. The Land 20:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi, new to wikipedia... but I wanted to mention that "electioneering" is the large scale, coordinated effort to rig a voting system. It is a legally defined term. Not just a political campaign, so "electioneering" should not redirect to "Political Campaign" but should become it's own topic...
I added a history of American campaigns and a reading list of major books. Richard Jensen 188.8.131.52 05:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- no. The Land 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- no. The political campaign staff article is long enough to be on its own. -Tjss 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done; hopefully that is correct as there is no reference in that article. -- Beland 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed to rename Category:Campaigning to Category:Election campaigning. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_25#Category:Campaigning. This might knock on to this article and others in the same category. Thanks jnestorius(talk) 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what the word specific adds to this definition?
- A political campaign is an organized effort which to influence the decision making process within a specific group.
Ace Diamond 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Liberalad.JPG
Image:Liberalad.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Election surprise should be cut back and merged with this article. The vague intangible idea of "election surprise" is a political campaign tactic, so this is the obvious article for what little information Election surprise could possibly contain. JayKeaton (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - this article is already tagged as failing to meet a worldview outlook, to include this predominantly US term and list of possible election surprises would not help globalise it. Both articles need work but a merge is not a solution for a pair inadequate articles. Fanx (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge USA sections
While some of the US political campaigns section may form a basis for relevant sections with worldwide scope, this should be merged to the article on US elections. This should then be replaced with a section entitled Political campaigning worldwide with a paragraph on the US, UK etc. TreveXtalk 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there are no objections I'm going to merge it out of this article? TreveXtalk 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This edit seems to have reverted a whole bunch of changes I made to the structure and prose of the article. I assume this was a mistake as the edit was marked as minor. If it wasn't, here's my rationale:
- Any political campaign is made up of three elements. The modern mnemonic is message, money, and machine. - This may be a nice aliterative phrase, but it's no way to structure the article. This division of 'campaigning' into three is nothing I've ever seen in any of the books on campaigning I've read. It fails to include key topics (e.g. campaign techniques) which then have to be dealt with elsewhere; it also fudges things together, for example 'message' includes both policy and the communication of that policy. This is also unsourced.
- The message is a concise statement saying why voters should pick a candidate - too simplistic by far. The key messages of a campaign may comprise between one and several ideas, policies or statements. Books have been written on the number of different ways this "message" can be conveyed - a concise statement is just one.
- The other changes I made reworked the existing material into a more coherent structure. This would obviously need to be expanded but we now have a logical base from which to do this.
- Indeed that was some sort of mistake; I had no intention of reverting your changes. I was merely repositioning the hatnote at the top of the page. I suspect that my edit ran into one of those mysterious glitches that needs to be reported as a bug, if only we could figure out what it was.
- Now I'll go see if I can redo my intended edit without causing any new damage... --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal 2
- Agree- no new information in that article, basically the same topic, can easily be merged here. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree - civil society organisations play a critical role in raising many issues that are beyond the formal political structures. Examples such as baby milk or Anti-retroviral treatments (for HIV) in developing economies are issues that stretch the political campaign label and lead to political campaigns. Mark Parker (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - The political campaign article is very long already and there is a big difference between a political campaign for office and one to effect social change. The groups that work to effect social change, such as NAACP, or Greenpeace work for many years and often decades to achieve their goals. Their work deserves and needs its own article because it is for social good without the personal desire for political power implicit in political campaigns for office. Marrante (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Marrate says it well. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Appearances can be deceiving. While some political machinations try to appear to be benign civil campaigns, that does not mean all civil campaigns need to be tarred with the same 'political' brush. I came to the article hoping to read a discussion of how "campaigner" has come to be a perjorative, but that doesn't mean that 'campaigner' == 'politician', an even worse label! I imagine the article has been expanded since the latest proposal (Sept 2008). I'd love to see more improvements to the article, but obviously I'd contribute negatives, so won't.... :-) Shenme (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Obstacle for democracies
Campaign financing is a major obstacle to democratic countries for them to call themselves as being truly democractic. This, as not all political parties are able to spend a same amount of money on their campaign; hence benefitting parties that have more money (which is hence inheritly undemocratic). This money comes from private founders/companies which often expect something in return (ie new laws that help them to increase their revenue), hence promoting corruption.
See http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/campaign-finance-regulation-faulty-assumptions-undemocratic-consequences , http://socialproblemsarelikemaths.blogspot.be/2012/04/when-is-campaign-finance-undemocratic.html , http://conventions.cps.neu.edu/campaign-finance/introduction/
Perhaps we also need to mention the Federal Election Campaign Act, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Tillman Act, Federal Corrupt Practices Act, Federal Election Campaign Act, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)