Talk:Political party/Archive 1

Archive 1

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:

• Inuit Ataqatigiit logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Political Parties are Essential to Control Government

Wikipedia is boldly launched on 'Political party' but there won't be any wind to move that discussion until the unique role of parties in America is cited. I'm uncertain how to 'edit' the existing articles because they are non sequiturs.

The role of any party worth it's formation is to gain and maintain control of government power. The first sentence of Wikipedia's party article sort of inches up to that but it's bloodless and only half right in the balance of the piece. It is as if Wikipedia doesn't think there is a constant battle to keep government in check. That was the role of political parties in America until 1948 when events unfolded that changed the political landscape in ways few can recall.

What happened in the 1948 Democratic National Conventionwas the passage of the civil rights platform plank crafted by Hubert Humphrey. It was a bold and righteous document, so bold that it caused the walkout of southern delegates -- mostly incumbent officeholders of the South -- who knew -- or thought --they could not bring the requirements back to their states. They formed the Dixiecrat party. It was generally conceded, as a result, that Harry S Truman would lose the election to Dewey. But that didn't happen. The people of America voted for Truman and that very strong civil rights plank that clearly wouldn't pass in today's Congress. That platform changed civil rights in America.

The result, little noted in history and even less in Wikipedia, is that incumbents and power-holders began the systematic disassembly of both national parties. This deliberate wreckage is nearly complete and evidence is everywhere of the tragedy. America's press spends so much time tracking the current horrors in America's government that they never find time to wonder how it happened.

While the press speaks constantly about the "Democrats" and "Republicans" in Congress, for example, there seems to be no memory that none of them are bound by platforms of the stature formerly attained. Even if platforms were drawn, party discipline requiring they be followed is no long in place. In short, to say a given officeholder is a member of this or that party is fanciful. They do not necessarily share any set of goals with the large body of party members who formerly issued platforms that expressed the will of the people.

To put it as simply and plainly as I can, the platforms -- defined by Truman as "A Contract with the People" -- were formed to build winning coalitions. Making up the planks were interests as diverse as the nation itself, from labor to industrialists, from the medical profession to tobacco growers. The planks came from the smallest precincts to the largest, rural to cities. The deal was simple, If I vote for this party you will pass my plank! Politicians who ran under the party banner were committed to support the platform! If they did not they could be and sometimes were kicked out of the party. Simple as that.

So party discipline was the handle the people kept over elected governments at every level. After 1948 politicians openly acted to defy this system. They simply did not want "the people" telling them what to do. And, we have to think, that was where we got the space program that seems to have resulted in very little benefit to your average person at the cost of billions of dollars better spent on our decrepit educational systems.

If you read those last two paragraphs several times it might strike you as very obvious that when they killed the party system they didn't replace it with any power left in the hands of the folks in the precincts. Hence we do not have control of the government in this former democracy. Elections mean nothing in the present system of primaries where television ads are used to sell popular candidates long before the parties have any opportunity to craft the platforms of the days before 1948. That is not an accident and I think Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to put this up before the people if it wants to be an honest publication.

(At 72, Bill Eger looks back over an intensely political life. He was lured into political campaign activity as a volunteer in Texas, first supporting Ralph Yarborough for U. S. Senatee and then Adlai Stevenson for president. Those two remain important in Eger's view of life in America before citizens lost their political power. No longer active in political matters, Eger finds present Democratic activists and office-holders mostly cynical and uninterested in following old party rules -- in states where they still exist -- because of reluctance to "embarrass" party politicians. The old rules kicked politicians out of party membership for failure to support a party platform after election as a nominated member of both parties. That was how parties used to keep government in its place, as a servant of the people.)

Thank you, Billeger Bill Eger <bill@hawaii-island.com> Bill Eger 11:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

I have tried to respond to the accusation of blandness and the lack of references by inserting James Madison's (and David Hume's) view of factions (parties)

Fenton Robb 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Parties & Colours

Under "parties and colors": exceptions to what? So far in the article before that point, the colors haven't been associated with any parties yet. -- John Owens 12:39 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Fixed. Kaihsu 18:09 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

In Commonwealth countries (well, at least in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) the "leftist" "progressive", or "labour" parties use red. "Rightist", "Conservative" parties use blue. I always assumed it was because it was thought that leftists are closer to communists than are rightists. In the USA it appears the convention is reversed when they speak of red and blue states. Should this be mentioned?Avalon 06:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Christian democracy

Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The Right & laissez-faire

"Right tends to favor laissez-faire" I read this statement throughout wikipedia, and in the united states I believe this is very untrue. What is normally called the "right" here, or conservatives, usually SAY they favor protectionist economic policies, whereas the left says they favor more socialist policies, but both sides end up DOING more laissez-faire style policies when they get into office.

The right wing as more than laissez-faire and fascism

The article implies that the right wing consists only of laissez-faire fundamentalists and fascists; however, being rather tired as I am, I can't manage to think of a term that would include more moderate conservative policies. Does anyone want to give me a hand by suggesting one and adding it to the list of right-wing political subgenres? Thanks. -- Batata Kartoffl

Non-partisan legislatures

Maybe we should mention non-partisan legislatures (like Nebraska or Jersey). Marnanel 13:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms and Supporting Arguments of the existence of the Political Party

It would be good to include a section criticising the existence of political parties.--Darrelljon 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Crticisms and Supports would be real nice --HoO8MyRiCe

"Britt is HOT! and so is sam " I could not relate this sentence to the political parties. Probably it is technical error.

Does anyone remember a study on party affiliation and values?

I recall hearing of a US study which suggested that people's values are influenced by the political party they identify with (Democrat or Republican), more than the other way around. Does anyone have a link, or remember any details of this? --Singkong2005 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template usable on articles

{{Political party}}

I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep Cwolfsheep 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say this has been replaced by {{Infobox political party}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In a democracy, can only a electoral body be a party?

A dispute has developed concerning Socialist Convergence (Mexico); this is a organisation with the status of a national political association, a legal form for small organisations with more than 5,000 supporters which are preparing to become electoral alternatives. Can this be described as a party, and categorised as such in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't know/care, but we have a difficult conflict between two editors on this topic and I would welcome your guidance. --Duncan 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit conflicts about CS is only one of several pages touched by the issue. User:Rune.welsh has done edits on several edits on various articles on Mexican parties which are highly confusing. The fact that a party loses its electoral registration does of course not mean that it automatically ceases to function as a political party. In some cases the outcome is quite absurd (like Socialist Convergence or Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, organizations that obvioulsy keep on functioning as political parties, despite legal recognition), but in other cases I think that several edits made by the said user lead to uncertainty on whether several parties are defunct or not. This applies for example to Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution, Party of the Nationalist Society, Social Alliance Party, Mexican Democratic Party and Social Democracy (Mexico), where parties are put in the Category:Former political parties in Mexico without any clarification whether the parties ceased to exist or not. National Synarchist Union is put in the "Former parties" category, in spite of current signs of existence. --Soman 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that "official registration" is an incredibly poor way to determine whether or not a party is authentically a party. First, party registration varies greatly from country to country. In some countries, perhaps most notably my own, the United States of America, there is no formal electoral institute that the parties have to register with. In other countries, not only do parties have to register, but the bar is set so high that all sorts of parties are excluded from the "legitimacy" of being "official." For the sake of neutrality, even tiny parties with such little support that they can't get the mandated amount of signatures or whatever should be considered parties.

However, there's factor that troubles me: some parties are ideologically opposed to democracy and thus see participation in the democratic process as a sort of "sell-out." Obviously this would most likely be seen in hardline extremist parties, such as orthodox militant Marxist parties. Simply because they don't participate in electoral democracy as defined by the state does not make them any less a party, however. I don't know anything about Socialist Convergence (Mexico). Perhaps they don't participate in elections because they are ideologically against them, perhaps they don't participate because they know they would loose, perhaps it's a combination of the two. However, I am of the opinion that in most cases, we should probably err of the side of calling groups like that a party. --Descendall 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. In the particular example of Socialist Convergence and many of the orgs linked by Soman, they don't participate in elections because they can't do so by law. Maybe in other countries there are not set criteria of what a party is or is not, but it happens that in Mexico there are and as such they have to be made clear in the appropriate articles. I'm Mexico calling yourself a party does not automatically make you so and this is what some editors apparently don't want to accept. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Mexican state is the only source of guidance here. Nor, indeed, is electoral participation the defining feature of a party. Many communist parties do not stand in elections: the Communist Party of Great Britain, for example, has typically endorsed the Labour Party. But it clearly is a political power since its aim is to replace the governing power. Socialist Convergence may, or may not, be or become a party: but the test is not whether or nor it wins that label from the Mexican government. --Duncan 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Suggestion

I am no expert at any of this, (in fact, I am an Indepedent and stick with George Washington on the matter: SHOULD NOT EXIST!) but with all the information I am recently coming across (In government class), would it not help if you guys started a Wikiproject for all political theories, parties, and ideologies? Colonel Marksman 04:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of a political party

Please note revert wars at Popular Socialist Party (Mexico) and Popular Socialist Party of Mexico. User:Rune.welsh seems to maintain that only organization that pass the rather rigid registration process of the federal election institute can be considered as a political party, notwithstanding that there are thousands of political parties around the world which have no formal recognition at all. Particularily confusing are wordings of Rune.welsh like "Popular Socialist Party (Spanish: Partido Popular Socialista, PPS) was a communist party in Mexico.", which leads the reader to believe that the party is no longer communist rather than clarifying that it is a communist party that has lost its electoral registration. --Soman 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: intro paragraph

I came to this article expecting to find, at the very top, the definition of a political party. To my surprise, I found none at all—this should be rectified as per WP:LEAD. —Psychonaut 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the intro was deleted back in December, possibly by mistake. I have just restored it. —Psychonaut 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PRC communist party

Can you call that a party? Isn't that a dictatorship. --Arigato1 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

one party rule is a dictatorship and can be seen as undemocratic, however; How it is organized makes it a party. An example of a dictatorship without a party would be a military junta. --Wilson 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Political Party

What will be the consensus parameters for determining whether a group of citizens, engaged in a political activity, constitutes a 'Political Party'?

Will the quantity of citizens participating be a primary factor?

Will the quality of the policies professed by a group be considered? And/or the philosophies and beliefs?

Can a single, commonly held voting strategy be considered as sufficient to call those participating in same as a 'Political Party'?

Just what do the participants in this wiki believe makes a 'political party', a political party?

[From Bill Eger] A political party is an organization of citizens who seek to control government power.

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The way that definition is applied in varying situations is extremely different. In the United States of America parties are very carefully controlled by government in ways that would not have been allowed sizty years ago. Parties must follow laws that restrict activities. The proliferation of pre-election primaries was the final death of effective parties because they have nothing to do with what the voters want, only offering a choice of what participating politicians want to achieve. The individual candidates spout their ambitions and the voters choose from them which they like best. There is no rule that a candidate nominated or elected must follow either what was promised in their campaigns or requested by groups -- including remnants of parties -- before the election. There is no control. Bill Eger 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brokerage Parties

The general concensus in the artical seems to be that all parties have some basic ideology. Should it be noted that some parties change thier positions from election to election to fit public will? Perhaps this is just a Canadian example but both the liberals and conservatives have at various times proposed tax cuts/hikes, war support/unsupport, definition of marraige, etc.--Wilson 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)