Template talk:United States political parties/Archive 1

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Aesthetics

Wow. Are people really attached to this template? I think it's really unattractive. The images are big and gaudy, and it just basically looks completely unprofessional. If there are no good objections, I'm going to try to come up with something better. —Cleared as filed. 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to try. This is a fairly rarely used template, however, so it's really not that important to make it all pretty and such. I doubt you'll run into any objections. Matt Yeager 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice job, DLJessup. Much, much better, and it didn't even occur to me that it could be that simple. —Cleared as filed. 00:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. — DLJessup (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, seems to work. Not pretty, but what an improvement! Matt Yeager 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetics, round 2

Member has reverted this template to the image-heavy version that was objected to in #Aesthetics above with the cryptic comment, "a few problems but its better". I am going to restore the image-free version in a moment. If you believe that the image-heavy version is better, please explain why here.

DLJessup (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear God, that is ugly. What about one with small logos? [1] --JW1805 (Talk) 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, when you write "that is ugly", are you referring to the image-heavy version or the image-free version?

DLJessup (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I meant the enormous one with the giant images and giant colored boxes [2]. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Party

I noticed there was some challenge to the Socialist Party signficance so I thought I should add why the Peace and Freedom is signficant enough. There are two good reasons. First it is the next largest party after the Greens in terms of the last election. Secondly and most importantly it is known for running highly controversial figures as its candidate. Two I know for sure were convicted of a major crime.(Leonard Peltier was convicted of murder of two CIA officers, and even more controversial(at one time supporting Republic of Vietnam) was Eldridge Cleaver their first candidate and a former leader of the Black Panther Party. Finally their speaker was Bob Avakian who is in charge of a radical Maoist Party in the U.S. finally they ran famous pediatrician Benjamin Spock. 12.220.47.145 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What minor parties to include?

We can't include every minor political party (there are hundreds of them). Constitution, Reform, Libertarian, and Green are the four biggest, and have a national presence. To address Revolución's edit summary ("The Socialist Party USA is significant because it is the descendant of the Socialist Party of America, one of the most successful third parties in American history"): I question the accuracy of that statement, but even if it were true, it is irrelevant. This template isn't for historical political parties. A party that currently has only 1500 members is insignificant. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, List of political parties in the United States doesn't even include the Reform Party as a third party. I say we use the criteria given there (having ballot status in enough states). --JW1805 (Talk) 01:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It does but keep in mind the Reform party endoresed Ralph Nader last election so thats why they are under parties that have endoresed candidates. The point of a U.S. third party isn't to win the election though but to gain signficant enough vote to force the major parties to act on their ideas. Very rarely(Whig, Republican) has a third party become bigger than a major party. 12.220.47.145 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as Rev's comments go, I imagine he would agree that we would only include the most notable groups. I have to agree with him that the Socialists are descended from the Socialist Party of America. That party would rank up with the Progressive Party in numbers. Their most famous candidate being Eugene V. Debs. That said we have three options that I see here.
  1. Only include the six largest parties
  2. Include the most notable parties.
  3. Create a third section on the template for parties that regularly exceed 1,000 votes or 5,000 votes. This would require us to upload some more logos though. 12.220.47.145 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

JW1805, what use do you think this template has with only five political parties on it? --Revolución (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • What is the alternative? Including the Alaskan Independence Party, Aloha Aina Party, America First Party, American Heritage Party, American Independent Party, and so on.... How useful would that template be? There is a clearly defined criteria at List of political parties in the United States for "third party". We should use that. The minor parties can be found by clicking the link found on the template. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The alternative as I mentioed above would be to inlcude the most notable parties(historically, culturally, significance, etc) or to create another section with smaller pics for parties that exceed 5,000 votes in last election as I mentioned above. 12.220.47.145 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a possible example.(very ugly, and it needs a lot of tweaking but is the basic idea). 12.220.47.145 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Do you have a source that shows how many votes each party got? Also, how are you defining 10,000 votes? Is that just for presidental candidates, or are you summing up votes from all the candidates from that party (If so, is that national elections only, or does it include state offices)? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Good point.(My source was wikipedia). I meant 10,000 presidential votes. it wasn't a very good version which is why I didn't implement it but I was presenting a possibility. I was only including the Presidential Race. Obviously if a third party won a seat in Congress we would include them but that is extremely unlikely. I know it wasn't very good, but like I said above I'm just giving a rough idea on how the template could be done. 12.220.47.145 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this? --Revolución (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Political Parties of the United States
Major Parties Democratic | Republican
Third parties Constitution | Green | Libertarian
Other* Socialist Party USA | Socialist Workers Party | Peace & Freedom Party | Reform Party
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list.

*Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election

    • I like that a lot. It allows for the template to change over time to. 12.220.47.145 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What is "a recent Presidential election". Do you mean 2004? If so, it should be specified. And 10,000 votes? In 2004, 10,000 votes was about 0.008% of total votes. Which is essentially zero, these minor parties have basically no effect on American politics, and they do not belong in this template.--JW1805 (Talk) 02:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Uhh, well then the third parties don't either because by your numbers the Greens for example just barely surpossed .08%. And you should notice that they do have influence. I have to say that your expectations are way to high. And numbers is the only way to have influence. 12.220.47.145 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Another note. It is impossible to really determine the REform votes because Nader ran as both a Reform candidate and an Independent and a few other minor parties. 12.220.47.145 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Color codes

I really think this template should use colors to represent the parties. I like the way this template is color coded:

Can we use a similar scheme for the US Party template? Unfortunately, I am not that good with wikicode, so can someone do it? Andros 1337 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • We already have an elections template, which I believe we should keep, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. We just have to decide what parties qualify for mentioning. 12.220.47.145 00:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I was talking about the colors. Andros 1337 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think colors are unnecessary for this template. Keep it simple, I say. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the problem would be is that the color of the Socialist Party USA is red, but Republicans also (for the moment) claim the color red. So I don't think colors would make things better. --Revolución (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats an easy one. Use two different shades of red. Andros 1337 19:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

New Giant Colorful Template

There's no reason for this template to be so big. It's huge.....it looks like we're drifting back to this version. The eariler version was fine. What is the point of all these colored lines and blank space? --JW1805 (Talk) 01:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Demo:
Political Parties of the United States
Major Parties:
Democratic Republican
Third parties:
Constitution Green Libertarian
Minor Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election
Socialist Socialist Workers Peace & Freedom Reform
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is based on the Canadian version of this template. It isn't very fair that the Canadian template have colors, while the U.S. one can't. It makes the template have a nicer, more creative style. Andros 1337 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Canada has dozens of parties.....the US has two (and a bunch of insignificant ones that hardly anyone knows or cares about). The template doesn't need to be giant. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Canada had exactly 9 parties over 10,000. Granted the population of Canada is much less than the United States, but the dozen you've stated have only 1,000 votes compared to millions in the major party. The situation is not that much different.(4 major parties to 2) 12.220.47.145 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Asterisk

I've removed the asterisk and the note stating that the "minor parties" received at least 10k votes in a recent election. I fail to see how that's relevant at all to the template, so I simply removed it. (I left a hidden note--you know, one of the <!-- note --> things to discourage people from putting on Uncle Dick's Fringe Party or anything, though.)

Objections? Matt Yeager 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fringe parties

  • No objections from me on removing the asterisk. In fact, I'd advocate putting all parties, no matter how small, on the template. It wouldn't mean an unlimited template— just include any party with a wikipedia article. Anyone have objections to that? —Markles 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

State-Specific Parties

I had added a section called State-Specific Parties for major parties that campaign only in one state for the offices in that state. I added the Vermont Progressive Party. What do you think? --Revolución (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, that's not a bad idea… —Markles 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not against the idea in principle; however, why is the Vermont Progressive Party particularily notable? It's not even an official third party in its own state, right? Matt Yeager (Talk?) 06:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So maybe we could develop some standard for which state-specific parties would be listed?—Markles 11:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an official third party in Vermont. It's the most successful state-specific party. The criteria for 10,000 votes in a recent Presidential election (which I originally suggested) doesn't really apply here, since the Vermont Progressive Party doesn't run Presidential candidates. --Revolución (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading its article... sure, six seats in a state legislature probably merits inclusion (certainly more than the freaking Peace and Freedom party!). However, I'm wondering if there isn't a better way to put them on the template—I don't think that we need to have a whole different level just for this one party (which appears to be an anomaly amongst U.S. minor parties). Could we just group it under "minor parties"? Matt Yeager (Talk?) 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. --Revolución (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know... is the Vermont Progressive Party really that much more important than, say, the Working Families Party?--Pharos 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Communist Party USA

Shouldn't it be inside the template considering its historical significance?--Jersey Devil 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been around, but it's never actually done much... that's a thought, but I don't know if it really ought to be in. Any thoughts, anyone else? Matt Yeager (Talk?) 01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if electoral politics wasn't its primary focus, it certainly was a historically significant party in earlier eras (especially 1930s), and ought to be listed in that section of the template even if it's not currently "notable". Cgingold 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, seeing as there are no objections, I will put it back where it belongs in the next day or so. Cgingold 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
CPUSA is still an active party, it is not appropriate to place it in "Historical Parties" (all of the other parties listed there no longer exist). In fact, its membership is larger than both the Socialist Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party, which are listed in "Smaller Parties" currently. I'm moving it to the smaller parties section. Cmrdm 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Party

I've just changed this template so that it links to the individual historical Progressive Parties rather than the disambiguation page for them. There are two reasons for this:

  • First, as a general principle, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to be linked to on a permanent basis (except for other disambiguation). Rather, they exist so that if an editor creates a wikilink to an ambiguous topic, the reader can easily find the appropriate target article (and, hopefully, fix the originating wikilink).
  • Secondly, in practice, well-meaning editors see that the dab page is on this template and decide to stick the template on the dab page. With a few exceptions, dab pages are supposed to be as lean as possible and are supposed to contain nothing that doesn't help in disambiguation.

DLJessup (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. There have been many manifestations of the Progressive Party, and we can't link to them all. Splitting it up is a bad idea, I think, because it makes the template look a lot uglier. If you have a problem with the template being on the Progressive disamb page, then splitting it up here is solving the wrong problem. There's a pretty solid consensus for the way things are right now on this page, so again, take care not to violate it. (I hope that didn't sound mean.) Any other thoughts? Matt Yeager (Talk?) 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't sound mean, but I'm often accused of writing abrasively myself, so what do I know?
Anyway, my wish is not so much to have multiple Progressive Party links on this template as to not have a link to the dab page. I tried to accomplish that end by splitting up the links, but I would be just as happy with no links to the Progressive Parties at all. This raises another question: what are the criteria by which you choose to have one historical party be on this template but not another? For example, why do you have the Anti-Masonic Party but not the Know-Nothings or the National Republican Party, each of which is arguably more important?
DLJessup (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The disambig should be fine, just put the template on each of those parties pages. After all, otherwise we could end up with a lot more parties. I'm not sure what the criteria should be. 12.220.94.199 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the Teddy Roosevelt one (1912) is the one most people are expecting to be transferred to. The other Progressive parties seem rather minor and should be OK just being in the List of Political Parties. I went ahead and changed the template, but I also put a note at the top of the 1912 page linking to the disambig page. Feel free to revert.--207.230.48.5 04:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this change so that "Progressive" links to the disambiguation page. The three historic Progressive parties were all significant in their years. The later two received more than one million votes and represent important political trends that created splits in the two major parties. DJ Silverfish 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the same user as 207.230.48.5. If all 3 Progressive Parties are of the same significance, which I can only deduce is what is meant by "were all significant in their years", then why is there even a need for the disambiguation? Why not just put all 3 Progressive Paties on the template since each one is of equal importance, as is claimed?

The average surfer is not going to "know" which Progesssive Party to click on from the disambig page. For one thing, you refer ro the "three historic Progessive Parties", but there are five on the disambig page. Also, when you goto the disambig page (as well as the other Progessive Party pages, excluding the 1912 page), you lose the navigational tool box. And lastly, I was under the impressing that is was discouraged to link to disambig pages.

If the intention is to guide the surfer to a specific page, such as the purpsoe of the navigational tool, then the tool itself should list the specific pages; i.e., an indivdiual link for each Progressive Party of historical significance (1912, 1924, 1948). One cannot give significance to all 5 parties just because they piggy backed on the name of Teddy Roosevelt's party. Seems to me like this is done for aesthetic reasons to make the template look nice without regard to user-friendliness.

I don't care about the Progessive Party, anyway. I am looking at this from a navigational standpoint. When I click on a link in an infobox, I do not expect to be taken to a disambig page which forces me to hope I choose the right one; when I reach a disambig page, I assume the link is broken and needs to be corrected. There has to be a better way than linking to the disambig page.--167.80.244.204 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

People's/Populist Party link

I've added a link to the late-19th Century People's (aka Populist) Party. The party elected a dozen U.S. Senators or state governors and controlled several state legislatures. DJ Silverfish 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link so it would go directly to Populist Party (United States) - People's Party (United States) redirected there anyway. Besides, I've almost always heard mentioned as the Populist Party and Populist movement. Octavian X 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What historical parties to include?

In an earlier post, I asked:

…what are the criteria by which you choose to have one historical party be on this template but not another? For example, why do you have the Anti-Masonic Party but not the Know-Nothings or the National Republican Party, each of which is arguably more important?

Now I've already added the National Republicans, on the basis that they were a legitimate Second Party (in the sense that the runner-up in a presidential election identified himself with that party), but I've never really received an answer to my question.

One criterion which definitely should put a party on this template is that of having elected a president. This gives us three indispensible links:

But what other criteria, if any, justifies the inclusion or exclusion of the remaining parties? Should a party need to elect so many members to Congress? Or win so many electors in a presidential election?

DLJessup (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Drawing arbitrary lines doesn't really get us anywhere... I think we need to just do this case-by-case. Basically, if someone thinks that an old party is exceptionally notable, it'll probably get on, but I can only think of five or six parties that'd get in from the past. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I find that case-by-case evaluation tends to be pretty arbitrary, which is why I was trying to elicit rational criteria for a historical party to get onto this template. I'd be interested in your five or six parties that'd get in and, more importantly, in the rationale for those five or six parties getting in. Why not include the Liberty Party, the first third party to play spoiler in a presidential election? (It is likely that the Liberty Party swung New York, and therefore the election, to Polk in the election of 1844.) How about the Free Soil Party, which won two Senate and fourteen House seats in 1848, and managed to get former President Van Buren to accept their presidential nomination? — DLJessup (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

VT Progressive - MN Independence?

Okay, so the VT Progressive Party gets a spot. Shouldn't then also the Independence Party of Minnesota, which is recognized as a "major" party within Minnesota, also be on this template? —Cuiviénen 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They appear to not have done anything for years. VT Progressives at least have a few seats in their state's house. =/ Matt Yeager (Talk?) 01:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
They ran candidates for governor and Senate in 2006 who won 6% and 3% of the vote. That sound significant still. —Cuiviénen 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Working Families Party

Candidates running on the Working Families Party ticket have received over 50k+ ballots in New York alone. Perhaps I misunderstand the criteria? Please explain what would be needed to demonstrate that the working families party is a notable third party. Jerimee 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To get a spot as a notable third party you have to have had ballot access in the most recent U.S. presidential election in enough states to have had a theoretical chance at winning the election. See List of political parties in the United States#Current third parties, the companion article. --Tim4christ17 talk 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To get a spot as a "smaller party", if you can demonstrate that the Working Families Party is more notable than one of the parties currently listed in that area, then you can replace the least notable small party with the Working Families Party (or I'll replace it for you, if you don't want to mess with editing the template.) --Tim4christ17 talk 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Historical Parties

Some historical parties have held Governorships and House or Senate seats, which would also make them significant. These include the Farmer-Labor Party, Independence Party of Minnesota, Alaskan Independence Party, Non-Partisan League and Conservative Party of New York. —Cuiviénen 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question isn't whether they are significant, but whether they are more significant. If you can demonstrate that they are more significant than currently listed ones, then please do so here and change the template accordingly. I think it's fair to say that we only want one line of parties, so any additional parties listed in the historical party line would have to replace a party currently listed. --Tim4christ17 talk 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would make a case for the Farmer-Labor Party being more significant than the National Republican Party, which was really just a short-lived transitional organization from the Democratic-Republicans to the Whigs. On the other hand, I see no reason why we should restrict the parties to one line; two lines is not particularly large, and I don't think there are any parties other than the ones listed that have ever won Congressional seats or Governorships. —Cuiviénen 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the Farmer-Labor Party and the NPL. The otehrs are still technically active, so putting them under historical parties is a bit POV. The template is not in any way large with two lines of historical parties. —Cuiviénen 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Socialist Party?

I have added the Socialist Party USA back to this box and I'm not sure why it was deleted. The Socialist Party is at least five times the size of the Socialist Workers Party and runs more candidates each year as well. If the SWP is going to be in the box, the Socialist Party certainly should as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.113 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The National Union party

The National Union party elected a president vice-president and congressmen in 1864. No room for them? Eschoir 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RV of major code change.

I reverted the major code change to this template. If someone wants to standardize the code format, or the "v.d.e." thing without discussion, that's fine. But please discuss any proposed major changes to the look/feel of the template before actually making them. Thank you. --Tim4christ17 talk 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the guilty one. I changed the layout to make it in one line with the other party navigation templates. Most templates - when available - share the same layout. You can see the other templates I found at user:Electionworld/Parties. I propose to bring this template to the same layout, which has a more relaxed I would say layout.

The present layout

Political Parties of the United States
Major Parties  Democratic  |  Republican
Third Parties  Constitution  |  Green  |  Libertarian
Smaller Parties   Reform  |  Socialist   |  Socialist Workers  |  VT Progressive
Historical Parties  Anti-Masonic | Democratic-Republican | Farmer-Labor | Federalist | National Republican
 National Union Party | Non-Partisan League | Populist (People's) Party | Progressive | Whig | Dixiecrat
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list.

The proposed layout (changed it a little bit on 30-6)

µ Political parties

Electionworld Talk? 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Actually, there is no such "standardization" among political party templates. Rather, because of the unique circumstances of each country's politics, there is a different style template for each country. See for example {{Canadian federal political parties}} and British parties (diff link for British template b/c you changed the format of the template w/o discussion - as you attempted to do here). At any rate, I fail to see any advantage to your proposed new template. The current template is compact - as opposed to your spread-out proposed template, and it is much easier to read, as the columns' color variations/type size graduations make it immediately clear which parties are the major and which are the minor, while simultaneously making it easy to keep track of which parties are on which line (your proposed one is somewhat harder to for my eyes to track along). All-in-all, the current template is very clear, concice, and easy on the eyes. A perfect combination.  :) --Tim4christ17 talk 09:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a matter of taste. Most navigation templates nowadays use a similar layout as the layout proposed by me. I didn't create the box template, I just used the standard one. it is true that I changed the layout of some of these templates, but most templates I found were allready in a similar layout. At the moment I am aware of three exceptions, Canada, Italy and USA. I really see no reason why the US party system requires another template layout than for e.g. may other countries. I think uniformity in these kind of issues is relevant and therefore I propose the adoption of this 'standard' layout. Electionworld Talk? 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple standardization is not a sufficient reason to switch from a compact, easy to read, clear template to one which is less compact, harder to follow across columns, and therefore not as clear. I've outlined several advantages to the current template and have yet to hear a significant reason for the drastic change you've proposed. --Tim4christ17 talk 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Standardization of navigation templates is an advantage and a significant reason itself. Furthermore: the color variations do not make it easier to follow and compact (I think you mean the width) is not necesarily an advantage. The colors do not give any extra information, since the texts in the colums are clear. I consider the proposed layout at least as easy to read as the old one. For readers who visit more pages, it has an advantage to see the same kind of template: that makes it easier to follow. Electionworld Talk? 07:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was kinda hoping there'd be more people watching the page who'd join in the discussion. Oh, well. Your modified proposed layout does meet my primary concerns, though I still think the original is more aesthetically pleasing. And I doubt too many people are going to be browsing through pages that would have multiple countries' party templates on them without being able to recognize them. But still...your point about standardization is well taken. And as no-one else seems to care too much about the change in format, I'll reservedly withdraw my objections for the time being. (Translation: I still think the current one is better, but go ahead and put your version in...we'll see what other people think about it) --Tim4christ17 talk 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since you requested new input, I really dislike the new template (the blue one) and much preferred the old one. (Maybe we could stretch the old one out wo that it's not so cramped, but I still think it's better than the newer one.) I think standardization for standardization's sake alone is a really rotten reason to do anything. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Redux

I can't find any explanation for the recent removal of the Peace and Freedom Party. What happened that suddenly made it no longer "notable" enough for inclusion? I realize that it's much stronger in California than elsewhere, but has there been a recent change in it's overall status? Cgingold 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to putting it back in? Last call for comments. I'll check back tomorrow. Cgingold 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad, it's been a while since I checked this template. I removed them, and here's why--the best performance they've done in the past thirty-eight years, apparently (and certainly in the past eight), is 2.5% of the vote for Controller. Honestly, that's not much. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point; however, I think it's a bit more complicated than you've suggested. For instance, by your standards, I would think that the Socialist Workers Party should also be removed. On the other hand, both the SWP and the P&F were considerably stronger in the not-too-distant past. It seems to me they should both be listed somewhere -- but if we put them in the "historical" section, it implies that they are defunct. (Actually, that applies to the CP as well, which I just added to the "historical" section.) So either there should be another section in the template for such parties, or some other solution needs to be devised. Cgingold 03:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you've sold my on its complexity. I don't think there's a problem with it being listed on "historical", because it's not nearly important enough to merit placement as a current party; I think we're agreed on that. Yes, it's still around, and it would be the only historical party with that distinction... but is that a problem? I don't think we need to remove P&F (I mean, we don't need an extroardinarily high bar for notable parties), I don't think we need a new section, Historical works fine for me. For you? Matt Yeager (Talk?) 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick response here, as I need to run. Like I said, putting it in "Historical" is very problematic, since it clearly implies that the party is defunct. Also, if the SWP is removed from "Smaller", as I suggested, and the CP is removed from "Historical", that would create a new group of 3 parties in need of a new designation. Unless somebody can come up with a better solution, it seems to me that they need their own section. (okay, gotta go now!) Cgingold 13:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deciding to keep or remove a smaller party based upon how much of a percentage of the vote that they receive in elections. The Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties, for example, usually don't win a significant percentage of the vote either. If we use election results as the only way of determining which parties should be listed, then we might as well only have the Democratic and Republican parties listed.

Regarding parties like the Peace and Freedom Party, perhaps it would be good to have a new section for regional parties. Cmrdm 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Smaller parties

To me the current criteria of only including smaller parties that received over a certain number of votes in a presidential election is inappropriate. This excludes parties that take the strategy of not fielding candidates at the national level until they achieve state level victories. Also, there are only a few more national parties that could be added. Tim Long 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Template Guideline Proposal

It would be best if we had fixed guidelines for the template (and put them in a template documentation page once they were completed). Once the guidelines are agreed on, then each party proposed for inclusion in the template would be discussed to ensure it met the guidelines. Otherwise, we just end up with either a bloated template or an arbitrary list of parties. My proposal follows:

(Note: All parties would be listed alphabetically)
  • Major parties - Democratic and Republican.
  • Third parties - any national party which had a theoretical chance of winning the most recent presidential election.
  • Smaller parties - any significant national party not meeting above criteria. This should be limited to one line on the template, with first priority given to parties which won a seat in Congress or a Gubernatorial race, second priority given to parties which won a state-wide election other than Governor, and third priority given to parties which won a seat in a state legislature. Other national parties should be considered after this by whether/where they have achieved ballot access.
  • State/Regional parties - parties which have a significant impact in one state (or possibly a very few states), with priority given to parties which have won or achieved a significant percentage of the vote in a recent election. This should preferably be limited to one line, though if it is demonstrated that there are too many state-level parties for one line, a second would be acceptable. Parties such as the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which are essentially state affiliates of a national party would not qualify for inclusion under this heading.
  • Historical parties - the current lineup seems appropriate for this criteria.
--Tim4christ17 talk 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I would propose rechristening this template as "Significant national political parties in the United States" and relocate all of the state and local parties to their own template. The intent of this template was simply for the significant national parties, I believe. Limiting them as proposed above may cause long, drawn-out edit-warring and once all of the state and local parties do get added, it will become too cumbersome to be of much use. IMO, lets give the state and local parties their own template with little limitation as to what is to what is to be included/excluded. Regards.--Old Hoss 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of relocating the state and local parties to thier own template. I think the addition of all the local parties is beginning to make the template a bit too crowded, and agree that limiting them as proposed would be far too cumbersome. It might also become problematic to limit the smaller parties as proposed. It would be much easier, IMHO, to only limit the smaller parties to those that have achieved ballot status (or at least did so in the previous election).--JayJasper 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
List of political parties in the United States, the link in the title of this template, already has some very loose limitations for smaller parties, with the most important being "Revisions and sourced additions are welcome." I am not a party expert, so I really can't comment on what they should be, but the above is a start. OR, we could also include a list section on the template containing lists to most of the other parties. I bet that there would not be to much of a problem with the 2 separate templates, but the limits on the smaller parties may be a work in progress. One way to find out is to be bold and see if any problems arise with the 2 separate templates - it can always be reverted.--Old Hoss 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done--Old Hoss 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done at that. Thanks!--JayJasper 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proliferation of smaller parties

Something like half a dozen parties were just added that may be worth debating. The Centrist Party (United States) appears to have run a candidate once, but I'm not sure if it is significant enough to include at this point. I feel similarly about LaRouche's Labor Party. For the moment I'm just going to remove Democratic Socialists of America and Social Democrats USA. Although both of these groups have historical connections to the Socialist Party of America, neither have ever to my knowledge run candidates in elections or shown any interest in doing so, nor do they seem to consider themselves political parties. The former operates primarily (though apparently not exclusively) as a caucus within the Democratic Party, while the latter is a defunct think tank. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be good to add a new section for "Regional Parties" (e.g. Vermont Progressives, Alaskan Independence, etc) and another new section for parties that are not currently running candidates (e.g. DSA, CPUSA, PLP, RCP-USA, etc). Excluding these other parties is evidently angering some editors... Cmrdm (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen much anger. There is Template:USLocalParty for "regional parties", and I think keeping the templates separate gives editors more flexibility, since we can put either or both in articles. In the summer of 2006, there was some discussion on Talk:List of political parties in the United States about creating a section in that list for organizations that structured themselves as parties without participating in elections, but nothing came of it in the end. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
At a minimum, running a candidate in a partisan race should be a requirement for the listing of political parties. I would suggest successfully running a candidate for a seat in the state legislature/cabinet or higher or (possibly unsuccessfully) running a candidate for Governor, Congress, or President, but that may exclude too many parties. Note that this suggestion is for the "smaller parties" box only.--Tim4christ17 talk 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone looking over David Schaich's record will notice he has been rewriting or deleting anything to do with Social Democrats across Wikipedia. The Social Democrats USA have written a letter of complaint against his actions and are asking the page be locked or David Schaich be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.28.107 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Suggestion

I don't know why we have the Natural Law Party or the New Alliance Party listed in historical parties. As far as I'm aware (but correct me if I'm wrong), neither of them were very significant to the fate of the country.

So here's what I suggest as a policy: a political party should not be listed in the "National political parties in the United States" box unless they've either (1) won any significant political offices (state senator, mayor, etc.), or (2) they pulled at least one state in a presidential election, or (3) they were historically significant even though they wielded no political power (i.e. the American Communist Party and McCarthyism). Does this sound acceptable? -- LightSpectra (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC).