Talk:List of political parties in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Party for Progress of Puerto Rico

Several of the top leaders of Puerto Rico's governing party (NPP) and its government, including Gov. Luis Fortuño, the party president, and Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, the party's chief spokesperson on the U.S. mainland, translate "Partido Nuevo Progresista" as "New Party for Progress", rather than "New Progressive Party". They have a point because in 1967 (year of the nationally bipartisan NPP's foundation by a Republican leader) Spanish, "progresista" referred to being in favor of "progress", while the English word "progressive" in 2012 is almost synonimous to "liberal". This, New Party for Progress is a more accurate translation of "Partido Nuevo Progresista", since the NPP is a party that includes both Republican conservatives, such as Fortuño, as well as Democratic moderates, such as McClintock and Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.

The general policy on lists like this one is not to use redlinks. The Wikipedia article is titled New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, so that is the name that should be linked. I have removed the link from the other name, but otherwise kept it there. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

See discussion at Talk:Third party (United States). Per WP:FORUMSHOP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The members of the American Patriot Party place the Party Link, as the Party is presently stopped by wiki members from existing as a PAGE on Wikipedia. Two previously written articles, perfectly suitable, are apparently not considered by a few Europeans and other Wikis as note worthy enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Where the frivolous Beer party and other ridiculous parties are allowed free rein and mentions. If wiki members will protect our article to exist, I ask that you replace the last page placed. The Party Exists, is fairly well known and is news worthy; Though not widely discussed because most news services are mostly Corporate (state born exclusive privileged cartels) and would rather not have true Constitutional Original-ism that the Founders intended promoted. The few Wiki Europeans and others hovering over the article to keep it from existing, do not like it either. The Excuse they use has been that they can't find articles, well others seem to be able to find them and us: Here is one article APP mention: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111120/NEWS03/311209935 Published: November 20, 2011 3:00 a.m. Fort Wayne, Indiana ‘Fair tax’ momentum growing on Capitol Hill Brian Francisco | Washington editor: ...."Democrats in Congress have panned the fair tax proposal. So, too, have conservative groups such as the Constitution Party and the American Patriot Party." The issue really should be, do we exist; And the answer to that is yes; From 2003 to Present. Over 20 states in organization. Now what purpose is there for those monitoring Wikipedia, to actively black out the existence of a Political Party, when the number of frivolous (even those no longer in existence) parties are easily granted notoriety on Wiki. So if Wiki users will protect the page, I will ask that the last page be posted as it was with the ending (United States). We do not understand wiki enough to reestablish the page, over those on Wiki bound and determined to keep it off. Past info: AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (2nd nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party_(2nd_nomination) Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (United States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party_(United_States) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardTaylorAPP (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

American Party

The American Party has been moved to the historical parties list. However, there is no confirmation that it is inactive. All we know is that their website is down. Could someone with editing priviledges please put the American Party back on the main list with the asterisk note explaining that it may be inactive? 130.64.160.179 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 130.64.178.178 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Regional parties

Looking at some recent edits, I would like to get a consensus on what constitutes a "regional party." It is my understanding that this section should list only state or regionally unique groups such as the Alaskan Independence Party and the Liberal Party of New York, and not state or local chapters of parties with larger representation, such as the Green Party and the American Conservative Party, even if the state or local chapters have separate Wikipedia articles (why individual chapters would be notable enough for a separate article is a separate issue.) Comments? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Add: American Patriot Party

Web Site: American Patriot Party .CC

2003 to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.21 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been said -- repeatedly, and at great length -- the party is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, and is therefore not notable enough to be in this list. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Socialist Labor Party

Note: The Socialist Labor Party is still active in the US. The article incorrectly listed it as "historic", ending in 2008. All that happened in 2008 was that the party stopped publishing it's journal, "People", in paper format, and instead moved it online. 14 quarterly editions have been published online since then. The party's website is still active, and accepting memberships and contributions.

In view of this I have removed the SLP from the "historic" list and placed it in the table of active parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In its informational sidebar, the article for the Socialist Labor Party of America states, quite explicitly, that the party was dissolved on September 1, 2008. The text notes -- with references -- that the party shut down its national office on that date. There are no candidates and no national conventions listed after that date. While there might still be a group that answers inquiries (a statement NOT supported by references) the party itself has ceased to exist, by its own statement. I'm sorry. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"The SLP closed its national office on September 1, 2008. The SLP carries on, mainly as a paper organization amongst the remaining members." "As of 2010, the SLP is moribund and carries on no activities, but has not been formally dissolved." (emphasis added)

http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CxP-Socialist_Labor_Party_of_America.htm

http://www.slp.org/

http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/Spring2011.pdf

But, have it your own way. It will just be another bit of perpetuated misinformation in Wikipedia, among thousands of others. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

closing office is not the same as dissolving the party, uh? 82.113.98.234 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

CPUSA

Perhaps CPUSA should be moved to the "non-electoral" section, since as far as I know, they haven't nominated a candidate since 1984. 130.64.98.51 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

American Nazi Party?

Since the "new" ANP doesn't have its own standalone article, should it be removed from the list of non-electoral organizations? 71.184.147.211 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There Needs to be a List for Non Recognized Political Parties

This would at least show that there are other political parties that are active in the political arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3C (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B103:CCE9:DEFD:C1D4:F9D6:4DB5 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a party for that list: http://www.lightparty.com/index.shtml--2600:1003:B12C:20BF:58D3:E6E4:8588:129F (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another active party for that list: American Patriot Party (2003). Google: American Patriot Party.cc See Stand on Issues; Also On Facebook at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.16.118 (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

Should be added.

Google: American Patriot Party.CC . This party has been in existence since 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:3CF0:0:0:0:39 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained -- many, MANY times -- this group does not meet the notability requirements of the Wikipedia. That is why there is no article for them. And without an article, they are not notable enough to be on this list. The only way this group can be added is if it were to actually go out and do stuff and obtain comment from reliable, third-party sources. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

The Veterans Party of America founded 2013(http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/) now has state organizations in all 50 states (not the District of Columbia). They should probably be listed here. Kip Joseph Kay (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Done This source appears to indicate they've been re-registered. Stickee (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

National Website - Google: American Patriot Party .CC

First registered in 2003, this party is presently active in 28 plus states.

Also Listed as Oregon Patriot Party of the American Patriot Party in the Green Papers under Third Party links to political parties in Oregon http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G15/OR ; Laws on Line .Com http://www.lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/Politics/political_parties.shtm Politics 1 http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Record shows political status in 2003 in federal register and that they started contribution request in that same year 2003: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/american_patriot_party.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.32.165.13 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In a document Prepared by Richard J. Hardy for the German-American Conference Sponsored by the Center for Civic Education Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana—March 5, 2011, The American Patriot Party is listed as such:

Minor Parties that Appeal to the Right of Center (Conservative):

America First Party (1944), American Independent Party (1967), Constitution Party [U.S. Taxpayers’ Party] (1992), American Heritage Party [Christian Liberty Party] (1996), American Party (2002), Unity Party of America (2004), Jefferson Republican Party (2006),), Objectivist Party (2008), American Taxpayer Party (2008), Tea Party (2009), American Patriot Party (2010)

Link: http://www.civiced.org/pdfs/GermanAmericanConf2011/Hardy.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.32.165.13 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated MANY times: to get a political party listed on this page, it must be notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Efforts to add such a page have, so far, resulted in the page being taken down because the party is not notable enough to meet the requirements of notability that is backed up by reliable, third-party sources. Until there is a stand-alone Wikipedia article for the American Patriot Party, it will not ever be added to this list. And I have redacted the efforts to slip the party's URL into the title of this section: the Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising your group. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there is a conflict of interest between our party and you (and those preventing this page from existing) as you seem to hover over this site and oppose any existence of the American Patriot Party, which causes you to ignore that this party has been in existence since 2003:

"...COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[2] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."[9]

The belief of an editor with a COI that she can remain neutral does not affect the determination that she has a COI. If a judge is involved with a defendant, her role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined no matter how convinced she is that she can remain impartial. Arguing that editors with a COI can remain neutral underestimates the extent to which their judgment may be impaired, the damage COI editing can inflict on public confidence, and the unease it causes within the community..."

The question I have is, what is it that you (TechBear) believe in that conflicts with your, or others, ability to acknowledge the fact that this party with 28 + - states in organization and has been in existence since 2003?

https://web.archive.org/web/20040701000000*/http://www.patriotparty.us https://web.archive.org/web/20040501000000*/http://www.patriotparty.us/state/or/index.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20040708234243/http://www.patriotparty.us/state/or/index.htm https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.oregonpatriotparty.com https://web.archive.org/web/20150601000000*/http://www.oregonpatriotparty.com https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.americanpatriotparty .cc (space between .cc placed because of prejudiced editors - remove space to go to link) https://web.archive.org/web/20150812104027/http://www.americanpatriotparty .cc/ (space between .cc placed because of prejudiced editors - remove space to go to link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:4330:1474:7FDC:57CB:9584 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

https://archive.org/web/ is a reliable third-party source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:4330:59A:31B2:83E7:EFA (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oregon Political Parties Recognized by State Gov Not Listed.

• "Voting in Oregon". Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved 4 October 2015.

As you can see we have a Pacific Green Party, a Democratic Party of Oregon, an Oregon Republican Party, an Americans Elect party (there is a national-level wikipedia page, but not state-specific so I don't know if that counts for inclusion), and a Libertarian Party of Oregon. I would edit and add them myself, but I realize I've been editing without being signed in for a few months so I don't have the 10 edit minimum to include them. Could someone please add them in for me? Nordoregon (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These are all affiliates of national parties; they don't belong on this list. Bulbajer (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

National Website - Google: American Patriot Party .CC

First registered in 2003, this party is presently active in 28 plus states.

Also Listed as Oregon Patriot Party of the American Patriot Party in the Green Papers under Third Party links to political parties in Oregon http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G15/OR ; Laws on Line .Com http://www.lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/Politics/political_parties.shtm Politics 1 http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Record shows political status in 2003 in federal register and that they started contribution request in that same year 2003: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/american_patriot_party.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.32.165.13 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC) In a document Prepared by Richard J. Hardy for the German-American Conference Sponsored by the Center for Civic Education Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana—March 5, 2011, The American Patriot Party is listed as such:

Minor Parties that Appeal to the Right of Center (Conservative):

America First Party (1944), American Independent Party (1967), Constitution Party [U.S. Taxpayers’ Party] (1992), American Heritage Party [Christian Liberty Party] (1996), American Party (2002), Unity Party of America (2004), Jefferson Republican Party (2006),), Objectivist Party (2008), American Taxpayer Party (2008), Tea Party (2009), American Patriot Party (2010)

Link: http://www.civiced.org/pdfs/GermanAmericanConf2011/Hardy.pdf

Further:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111120/NEWS03/311209935 This article is Archived - See Paragraph #15: https://web.archive.org/web/20111121171455/http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111120/NEWS03/311209935

Published: November 20, 2011 3:00 a.m. Fort Wayne, Indiana ‘Fair tax’ momentum growing on Capitol Hill Brian Francisco | Washington editor: ....."Democrats in Congress have panned the fair tax proposal. So, too, have conservative groups such as the Constitution Party and the American Patriot Party."

http://wramsite.com/forum/topics/patriot-or-blind-patriot-that-is-the-question?id=3567481%3ATopic%3A1260673&page=11#comments

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/news-tags/american-patriot-party : The existence of this article and the one above shows that the pages linked existed regarding the American Patriot Party which are deleted soon after by editors; We also have a saved the Journal Gazette Article page in full with the above acknowlegement against any Flat or Fair Tax;

If you do your research on the Wayback Machine, you will find that these articles existed as Web Archive search engines spidered the page - the Sunshine State News Article web Archive link showing the obvious subject matter as the "American Patriot Party: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/news-tags/american-patriot-party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:292E:2B0:1928:A798:D0FE:CE33 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There continues a conflict of interest between our party and those preventing this page (one in wiki editor in particular: TechBear) from existing; as these people seem to hover over this site and oppose any existence of the American Patriot Party on Wikipedia ignoring that this party has been in existence since 2003:

"...COI (Conflict of Interest) emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[2] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."[9] The belief of an editor with a COI that she can remain neutral does not affect the determination"

Please stop removing a obviously existing party. Since you do not want us to create the page (because each time in the past you have removed the page posted) You post the page. Richard Taylor APP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:292E:2B0:1928:A798:D0FE:CE33 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The policies are quite clear: an organization must be notable, and its notability must be backed up with reliable, third-party sources, in order for it to have an article in the Wikipedia. So get press in newspapers of record, or a magazine such as Time, or on network news, and do this often enough that there are several different stories about it. Your own website is not a reliable third-party source. A press release is not a reliable third-party source. These shouldn't be difficult concepts. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Time and network news are all bias news networks operated by corporations owned or swayed by international interests and are as interested in keeping True Constitutional Law which we propose as silenced as you attempt to do. You have offered no explanation but have proved my point.

You TechBear will allow frivolous parties such as the "Beer Party" to exist, yet the American Patriot Party which describes the United States Constitution as it was intended by the Founders and has in fact existed since 2003 you personally being judge and jury refuse either page or mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by: Richard Taylor APP

He hasn't been the only one reverting your edits... What I suggest you do is take a look at the deletion logs for American Patriot Party. Examine the criterion that was used to delete your party's page. If you think you can convince Wikipedia that your party is notable by Wikipedia's own standards (these standards have been pointed out to you and/or your party members continuously over the years), then re-submit an article for your party. If that article survives, then it will be added to this list. Until then, stop persistently adding the APP to this page and ignoring/insulting those who revert your edits. Bulbajer (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, You probably won't be able to submit the article straight away if it's been deleted before. See here for a solution. As another user told you back in 2010, being civil helps. Bulbajer (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Odd, I do not see the "Beer Party" on this list. If you would tell me where it is, I'd be happy to review it for notability. As for "frivolous" political parties, these are organizations that meet the notability requirements: it is not my fault that the American Patriot Party is less notable than the US Marijuana Party or the Rent is Too Damn High party. You ascribe me far more power than I actually hold. As for when the APP was founded, my book club has been around since 2001 and has some strong opinions on politics, should it be listed too? Probably not, as it has never run candidates that made enough of an impact to get mentioned in reliable sources. Maybe next election. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like I am debating one person with two or more wikipedia accounts; Whatever the case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_political_parties shows (the Beer Lovers Party and Donald Duck Parties listed) that even frivolous and defunct frivolous parties are given notability over a existing operating political party. Again it seems a obvious COI (Conflict of Interest) is emerging from an editor's roles and relationships and an obvious attempt to groom reader of wikipedia to their own political and social preferences by altering or limiting content - Richard Taylor APP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.192.127 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You know the rules: Bog knows, you have had them explained to you time after time after time after time. Get the third party references from reliable sources, and write a proper Wikipedia article. Then, and only then, can it be added to this list. The fact that other frivolous parties have gotten sufficient recognition while yours has not is not somehow proof of COI or an agenda. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that whatever the recognition our party does in the past have, and that existence being ignored, is proof of COI. Richard Taylor APP.

Seems quite apparent this group has existed for some time, the Southern Poverty Law Center a socialist group who hates just about everyone and calls everyone else haters associates them with the Constitution Party and lists them as very active in numerous states in their publications: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/antigovernment-groups-2014_splc.pdf

Then, as has been said to death: write an article for them that meets all of the requirements for a Wikipedia article, and link to it. This ain't rocket science. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Socialist Labour Party

This party seems to have drastically declined in numbers during existence but it has to now not dissolved, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialist_Labor_Party_of_America#Not_disolved so it should move from "historical parties" to "minor political parties". 82.113.98.234 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Progressive Bull Moose Party

Their may be a New Bull Moose Party out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.200.120 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Once it is sufficiently notable to have mention in reliable, 3rd party sources such as newspapers of record and reputable magazines, a Wikipedia article for the new party can be written, and an entry linking to that Wikipedia article can be added to this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

Can someone please add the American Solidarity Party to the list of minor parties. I believe it should be a new row under the American Conservative Party row, in order to maintain alphabetical order. The contents would be:
American Solidarity Party
Founded in 2011

Dhalsim2 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The article has some serious problems, which have been noted. Once those are addressed, and the notability of the party has been established, there shouldn't be any problem having it added to this list. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all: of the nine references, three point to documents hosted on Office Live and two point to Facebook. I doubt very, very much that any of these meet the criteria of reliable sources. Three more seem to point to the mouthpieces of the organization, which do not seem to meet the criteria of third-party resources. Only one reference is appropriate, and that is the one that points to the party's website. None of which establish, in any way, the requirement of notability. I think it should be pulled from this article until the party's article has been fixed: as it stands now, it meets the standards for a speedy delete. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. In terms of the scope of this edit request, I believe a link is present in the article, which is why I toggled the request. If this article

can be CSDd or PRODed, that can be done separately. Ping me if there are any issues though. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Please add this Conservative Party of Virginia to the list of historical (no longer active) political parties and link it to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Virginia TRowlette (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

Checking back on the Talk archives https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States&oldid=714174943

This is noted: "Seems quite apparent this group has existed for some time, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a socialist group who hates just about everyone and calls everyone else haters, associates them (American Patriot Party) with the Constitution Party and lists them as very active in numerous states in their publications: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/antigovernment-groups-2014_splc.pdf"

I agree, this party should be added to the list, as this political party has been around for a long time. It promoted Ron Paul 1n 2008 and 2012; It was very active on the Campaign for Liberty as well as the Daily Paul. Lots of states in organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.32.237 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As has been said many, MANY times: get the article written first. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This American Patriot Party mention - article is Archived - See Paragraph #15: https://web.archive.org/web/20111121171455/http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111120/NEWS03/311209935

Another American Patriot Party Mention - TimesUnion - though they seem to get their information from the Southern Poverty Law Center; as the American Patriot Party is not a anti-government group, but is a party that is for original intent of government as defined by the Founders - this means the American Patriot Party is a Pro-Constitutional government party: http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Rooting-out-homegrown-terror-10625690.php

American Patriot Party mention in Sunshine State News: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/floridas-small-parties-short-candidates

There is a Oregon Patriot Party of the American Patriot Party Mention in The Green Paper: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/OR.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:292C:EA60:BC49:A93B:398E:60C9 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Member for over 10 years, this party should be listed, I agree with the talk poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.153.192 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Member for over 11 years, surprised this party is not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.82.9 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

I am new here and apologize if I am misusing this forum. I wanted to know why the Tea Party Movement is not listed in the political parties of the US. Thank you for reading my question. LR 73.112.13.53 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question. The Tea party movement is a movement of several different organizations and individuals, not a political party, so it does not belong on this list. Bulbajer (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Two additional non-electoral organizations

To the section on "Non-electoral organizations" I added Justice Democrats and Our Revolution. These organizations aren't political parties. Nevertheless, they exactly meet the description of that list: "These organizations do not nominate candidates for election but otherwise function similarly to political parties."

My edit was reverted but I think the two organizations belong here. JamesMLane t c 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it seems to me like both of these organizations are more like intra-party caucuses than independent political parties or organizations. The non-electoral list was created mainly to incorporate leftist parties like CPUSA are independent political parties but do not participate in the electoral process. Nevertheless, the wording in the section is a bit ambiguous, so I re-added Our Revolution, but I'm pretty sure a group that specifically defines itself as a part of one of the major parties, like Justice Democrats, doesn't belong on this list for the same reason the Blue Dog Democrats don't. (I'm removing Democratic Freedom Caucus for the same reason). Bulbajer (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of getting bogged down in the definitions, how about if we just add another section for intra-party caucuses? Information about the Justice Democrats would be relevant to a reader interested in political parties in the U.S. The inclusion makes the article more useful. I see your point about the differences among these different types of entities, but the distinctions can be respected by putting each link in its appropriate section. A reader who cares only about political parties, narrowly defined to mean entities that participate in the electoral process and have their own ballot lines, can ignore the later sections on non-electoral organizations and intra-party caucuses. JamesMLane t c 04:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bulbajer (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Major/minor classification

This came up in 2012, but didn't seem to be resolved. The definition of "major" party used here (which sources to just one publication that doesn't look like a high quality source) conflicts with the definition on the major party page, which defines a major party as one "having electoral strength sufficient to permit it to win control of a government usually with comparative regularity and when defeated to constitute the principal opposition to the party in power." Clearly, but that definition, only the Republicans and Democrats qualify, and they're the only US parties listed on that page. While I understand that the Greens and Libertarians are in a different league than the Freedom Socialist Party (as an example), their level of support (and political power) is unquestionably much closer to the Freedom Socialist Party than to the Republicans or Democrats.

Is it time for a reclassification, moving the Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution Party to the Minor Party section?

Following up on this, I'm going to go ahead and make the change, so that the Major Parties meet the definition of Major Party. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that no-one got back to you. You make a good argument, but I think it's odd that we now have two different sections in which the Democrats and Republicans are the only parties listed. Personally I think it makes sense to have a section explaining that the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution Party are often viewed as the "big 3" of the minor parties, provided we can find a reliable source of course. Bulbajer (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we do "Major Political Parties," then "Minor Parties with State Representation," then "Other Minor Parties"? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.

American Patriot Party

To say this yet again: If this party is sufficiently notable to be included on this list, there must be a Wikipedia article written about it FIRST that meets the necessary criteria. Past efforts to write such an article have resulted in the article being deleted for lack of notability, but you are welcome to try yet again. I have deleted all the repeated efforts to use this as a forum to promote your group, please do not re-add it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted persistent vandalism. Stop it. Now. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only vandalism created is by you User:TechBear I have reviewed the history and you have persistently refused to accept that this party is a valid political party regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary. It is quite apparent that this party offends your socialist leanings and you should excuse yourself from editing the article..

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political parties in the United States. 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/20120405102105/http://www.politics1.com/states.htm to http://www.politics1.com/states.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No Social Democracy / Labour Party ?

Of all these listed political parties, is there really not one party with Social Democracy as base ? Social Democracy shouldn't be confused with Communism. But like Labour Party in Britain, SPD in Germany (including West Germany 1948-1990) etc. Traditionally believing in a public sector (national, regional and local levels) that includes more than just Defense, Police and prisons, and a higher taxing degree of income and VAT. And politicans like Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, François Mitterrand, Per-Albin Hansson, Anker Jørgensen etc Boeing720 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), but they are more of an activist group than a formal political party. "Democratic Socialism" is a broad term but most Americans who identify by that label are probably what Europeans would refer to as Social Democrats. To gain any sort of electoral success, most American Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists feel obliged to operate under the banner of the Democratic Party, even though they're largely perceived as a "left-wing insurgency" against the Democrat's neoliberal establishment. --Lord Bromblemore 18:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Registered voters column

Why does this add value? The information is old (2014/16), approximate (500,000 is a very round number), very limited (only two parties named), well-correlated with the presidential votes category (for those two parties), and of dubious value, since only 31 states actually have party registration at all... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Party/Progressive Alliance

The Democratic Party is listed as a participant in the Progressive Alliance on the Progressive Alliance wikipage, although there was clearly debate a couple of years ago whether it should be. Toa Nidhiki05, I suggest we remove the International Affiliate column entirely, since I don't see it as adding much. I'll make that change, let me know if that doesn't work for you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Toa Nidhiki05 19:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate minor with state/minor/regional?

Right now, we've got three categories for minor parties, with some (Vermont Progressive Party, for example) included in more than one. In addition, the current breakdown creates some odd relative importance implications. Looking at the VT Progressive Party as an example again, it is represented in the VT state legislature, but those 7 state house seats represent something like 30k people in total, so having them in that box, while relegating the Greens and Libertarians to the Minor Party table below, seems a bit deceptive. I'm thinking we should combine all three minor party sections into the Minor party table, adding columns for Regional/National (which would name the state for state-specific parties, but otherwise say national), and for state legislature seats (combine upper and lower house). Or, maybe we just combine all the sections (except the historical into a single table, including the above columns, plus columns for US Senate and US House seats. Thoughts? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging User:TechBear and User:Bulbajer... Thoughts? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bulbajer (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I went ahead and took a shot at it. Still needs some data filled in (ideology and founding date for regional parties), but I think it's an improvement. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• The new layout looks reasonable, nice job. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but also needs to combine the old elected official tables list into the active political parties table, to be more professional. Like with the List of political parties in the United Kingdom page's very good table. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I consider this mixed... as sure it looked like a complete list of all the active American political parties, but I think the main issue will also created that may confused people like myself in the near-future of try to find a few political parties (usually third parties), or politically Independent elected officials, then the tables aren't exist anymore. And only if how they gonna to find a third party (elected/joined) official they gain or not from the major two parties, then what. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies, but I really don't understand what you're saying here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I was think of considered that a critically mixed about your change, especially it maybe was become confusing for several viewers in the near-future. But since your add something, that I wanted to appeared (a list of elected politicians/officials, in the right side), except the Independents are somehow still excluded. Then maybe nevermind I guess. Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I’m also skeptical of this change. One issue I have is the grouping of local, state, and national parties in the same table - this isn’t ideal. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I could split the table back into national and regional parties, and remove the "national/regional" column from the national parties table, and the federal office members columns from the regional parties table... Thoughts? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I've made a pretty major change. I've lumped the major parties off to show more information for them, and moved the minor parties to another table. There may be reason to separate sub-state parties (ie. Progressive Dane and Charter Party) into their own table but I think this works okay. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Write In inclusion

Toa_Nidhiki05 I would like to see the consensus for not including write in votes. I think the FEC numbers should include all the votes. If there is consensus, I might open an RFC for thoughts on the matter.Manabimasu (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is many states do not count write-in votes and many of these votes were for the candidate - not the party. The FEC italics denote either scenario. If the party didn’t have ballot access it wasn’t a vote for them, it was a vote for their candidate, and that doesn’t count. Toa Nidhiki05 21:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More Research

Let's go out of our ways to ask are Mayor and Senate what parties are running for Local/Presidential. WikiPeaks96 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

PPD and PAP

Although it is technically correct to place them in the section with parties without representation in state legislatures, they are the two major parties in Puerto Rico and their inclusion in that section is misleading.

2601:600:A37F:F111:B958:8722:99C5:F0E9 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, perhaps we ought to change the section with representation to "parties with representation in state and territorial legislatures? Bulbajer (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Colors

In my opinion, we should add political party colors for "parties not represented" and "historical parties." If a party is listed here, then it means they have ran candidates, and have (or easily can get) an electoral color from the template list. This is especially with the major defunct parties, like the Federalists and the Know Nothings.

For example, it would look something like this (check the source editor for the hexcode and template link methods):

(pretend this is bigger) Not represented in Congress, state legislatures, or territorial legislatures (pretend this is bigger)

Party		Ideology	Founded	Presidential vote (2016)
	link to template	Environmentalism	1776	1,457,218 (1.07%)
	hexcode	Conservatism	1962	292,392 (0.21%)

What do y'all think? --Curbon7 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Too early for 2020 presidential election estimates?

I wasn't here for the 2016 election to know how long the standard wait time is before swapping in the new results, so I thought to ask. From what I've seen it takes over a year for official results to release, so in the meantime are estimates used? State-by-state results exist from the Associated Press and others, so it could definitely be done once counting finishes up. 2605:E000:A444:B00:257D:647A:2BE3:461D (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the logos are gone

Like for the serve america party has no logo when it had one a few weeks back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacles14 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Many logos have been removed because they do not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. See these pages: WP:FU, WP:NFCC, WP:NFUR. Bulbajer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

T.E.A. Party

I notice that the Taxed Enough Already (aka T.E.A. or TEA) Party is not listed at all. Which I find very odd, considering they are still extant and active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.93.169 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Tea Party movement includes several individual organizations, but none of them are organized as political parties. If there's an actual Tea Party that operates as a party and/or runs candidates, look into writing an article for it (and make sure it meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements). Bulbajer (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I was initially under the impression that only parties with articles are included here and there a few here that don't. Should they be removed or should more parties without articles be added? There's also many parties with articles that are not listed here. Why is that? Charles Essie (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, only parties with articles should be included. I'm aware of one party that doesn't, and that's Liberation Road, which was one-half of the 1999 split in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. In the past, the FRSO article devoted a section for each of the factions, but in the past year (I think) someone split the Liberation Road faction into its own article, but that article was deleted, and now the FRSO article barely mentions anything about that faction. Personally I think that the Liberation Road faction deserves either its own article or a section of the FRSO article like it did in the past, but until either scenario happens, it should be removed from this page. I will remove it now. Feel free to take care of any others you notice. Also, if you know of parties that have their own articles but aren't listed here, feel free to add them - just make sure they're actual party-type organizations and not broader movements (see the Tea Party section above). Bulbajer (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue on logos

Although there is a system in place preventing the use of copyrighted logos in this page, there is no legal basis to do so. As is clear in fair use:

"The logos, symbols and icons of political parties are often registered marks, and should be avoided in commercial use imagery. These icons or symbols may be suitable within editorial content."

Unless wikipedia is secretly profiting off these pages there is no actual legal basis for a copyright from the owners if the party logo. So I am confused as to why User:Tartan357 has removed the logos for the various small third parties.

While we are at it why the double standard? The donkey and elephant are both copyrighted logos of the democratic and republican parties, why not remove them too?

not only does this not make any legal sense, but it is also a horrific double standard--Scu ba (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Tartan357. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Scu ba, You really should read Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of copyrighted images and our general copyright policy. Fair Use is not Wikipedia policy. Only in the very very specific guidelines you can see in the first link I provided are non-free images allowed. Most of the other logos throughout the article have the valid licenses for free non-commercial use. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Scu ba, the Democratic and Republican logos are actually public domain because of their age. I'm not the one who put the edit notice on this page. If you believe that using logos on this page as fair use meets one of Wikipedia's fair use criteria, then by all means, go ahead. However, you'll need to edit the WP:NFCC details on those files to justify their use on this page, which you did not do. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 sorry, i didn't mean to sound rude, but is there an administrator that specializes in copyright that could weigh in on this situation? --Scu ba (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Scu ba, yes, Diannaa is our admin copyright expert. I recommend you read WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC and try to learn our fair use policy for yourself, though. This isn't a particularly complex situation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 Okay thank you for clarifying --Scu ba (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't allow non-free images in lists.— Diannaa (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A slew of these images also seem to have false copyright information, with the uploader claiming the image is their property. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Logo del Partido Popular Democrático.jpg
• RITDHlogo.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Conservative Party of New York Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party missing

The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party is missing from the "Represented in state legislatures" section. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Mebigrouxboy, that's because it's just a state affiliate of the Democratic Party, unlike the old Farmer–Labor Party which was. This is similar to the North Dakota Democratic–Nonpartisan League, which is also just a state affiliate. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not too familiar with local level politics, much less Minnesotan politics. My bad. Thanks!Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion:Parties with ballot access

Hi all, what do other editors think about including in the article parties with ballot access, but that currently lack wikipedia articles. It seems to me that ballot access would generally indicate a party is worth including, considering how hard ballot access is to achieve for most parties in the United States. Including parties currently with ballot access that are lacking a wikipedia page increases the list by 6 parties: Conservative Party of Delaware, Liberal Party of Delaware, Independent Party of Louisiana, America First Party of Mississippi, Independence Party of South Carolina and the Independent American Party. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:LSC applies. Such a list is moreso for navigational purposes; including parties that do not have articles and are not likely to ever have articles defeats the purpose, as this is not a exhaustive list: "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive". Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm definitely not advocating an exhaustive list; I'm advocating for expanding the inclusion criteria to include all parties with ballot access (6 additional parties). WP:LSC says we should keep in mind "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" and I think parties with ballot access meet that criteria and do not add too much to the page. It seems odd that a voter is able to officially register with these 6 parties, but they are not listed on an encyclopedia list of parties. WP:LSC also says "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." The addition of 6 additional parties seems to meet either of these criteria. And the top of the page currently reads "You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.", should we remove/change that to reflect the actual criteria, if WP:RS is not enough for inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vermont Progressive Party Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted some parties

Somehow these parties were dropped, legalize weed parties various. Peace and freedom party, a ballot access party in California. 2600:1012:B11F:BE1D:4C2E:51BD:FE7:A767 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

New Kentucky Pirate Pary

https://kypp.org/2023/02/03/the-kentucky-pirate-party-has-decided-to-leave-the-united-states-pirate-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:C90D:BFA0:C58E:2A5:9134:5128 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What qualifies as ballot access?

The American Solidarity Party has run several candidates who have attained ballot access as independents, including in Arkansas for US president, and probably more states in the future. Is that sufficient to move it to the section of parties with ballot access, or should that require official party status in a state? (If so, I think that section should be renamed). XP6287 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Working Families Party

Should the Working Families Party be counted as being represented in state legislatures? Like the forward party, it has affiliated members in the NY state legislature. DrBeat1 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The 2 Forward legislators declared their affiliation with the party. If you can find the same for some NY legislators, the inclusion of the 2 parties can definitely be discussed. Longestview (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the alliance party and reform party totals be swapped?

While they both nominated the same guy, ultimately the Reform’s VP pick happened 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E919:35F4:FFED:1BF9 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)