Talk:Politics/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evolution of 'politics'

The early history section should in my view either be confined to "Europe" or omitted. "The oldest form of government was tribal organization. Rule by elders was supplanted by monarchy" this presupposes a evolutionary model. As if early stages of organization are replaced by the later stages. Contrarily, there still are "tribal" organisations. They can be very stable political systems over thousands of years (see the Nuer as one of many examples). It is eurocentric to suppose this type of "early history." Additionally a "tribal organization" is not necessarily a rule of elders. Depending on the scarcity of ressources these type of organisations can be extremly egalitarian.

Categorization

To spare all our nerves, we have chosen not to categorize any of the systems and ideologies on this page according to their similarity to each other, instead listing them in alphabetical order. Originally, we did categorize by system and this led to a lot of bickering. See Categorization Talk. If you want to order them, please first consult that page to see whether somebody has already objected to your ordering, and justify here why your ordering is from the Neutral point of view.

Also, please don't categorize articles on this page until they are beyond stub.

European Union

I'd like to add a few pages on the European Union - its institutions, the way decisions are made etc. Does anyone have any idea where to add that article? Next to the item "US politics" seems logical, but I am not happy with the category "miscellaneous" which this item is in. What about a top level entry (from the politics page) to something like "political entities" which would contain the EU, UN, USSR, League of Nations, and links to items on the politics of various national states (US, UK, Netherlands, whatever)?

--Herman Beun

How about two headings: "Supernational political entities" and "national politics"? Would that be too confusing? The miscellaneous heading was a cop-out because I thought corporate police state and the like were muddying up "Systems and ideologies", but didn't know what to do with them. --DanKeshet

Political science basic topics

There is probably a merge in order between this page and Political science basic topics. I built out the basic topics page after visiting the most basic encyclopedia article topics page, and didn't think to look here until now

RobLa

How about "Hybrid Institutions" since the EU is more than a supra-national actor - it is unlike anything else and incomparable to anyything else

Definition

Isn't the definition too narrow? Doesn't politics exist in offices, factories, unions, even families?

Exile

The definitions in the lead section are a mess (in terms of both format and content). Nicknz 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

comment: this seems like an ideal candidate for incorporation into a WikiProject.

Done --Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

a disagreement about definitions

I cannot agree with the first paragraph of this article but don't have a clue how to make what would have to be a huge edit.

A common joke among Political Scientists goes: Political Science is to Politics as Art History is to Art.

When the author asserts that politics is the study of the decision making process I just want to scream (a little). I am, as it turns out, both a political scientist and a politician and the distinction, to me, seems crystal clear.

I am neither political scientist nor politician but I work with organizationnal theories and the definition of politics as decision making appear totally inadequate because much too narrow (the fact that it is at the very beginning adds to the problem). Anonymous.
- The definition does not say that politics is decision making but that politics is a process and that politics leads to decisions.Ace Diamond 03:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But before mucking about with a major revision I thought maybe some discussion may be in order.

T

I seriously disagree with the revert but at least the information I added was kept in. I believe that what comes first in Reality should appear first. Politics is a Greek word matching a Greek mentality. Again, there is an attempt to re-write history according to ""modern senses" which I find suspicious. Moderns don't have Greek mentality and hence no understanding of the words they use which are Greek. If it is a Greek word let the Greeks define it. I am finding this pretty annoying or discovered huge element in the lack of education of people.198.108.150.2 17:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First things first? I did try to start with pre human behavior that influenced ( or evolved into) political behavior.--I'm new at this so my citations didn't work. I'm still learning.--

I find the notion that politics did not exist untill the Greeks named it incomprehensible. The article that that we are editing may well be better named political philosophy (or political ethics) than a definition of practical blood under the fingernails politics.Ace Diamond

I provide references to what I posted. The original version has no references. So I again disagree. Wikipedia states references are to be cited. There is no citation of references.WHEELER 17:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Further, I would like to add How the Greeks defined forms of government from quoting Aristotle. This also needs to be added. Thanks. A Socratic may be in order for this definition also.

- Also, there is another site called civics. This is a Latin word for the Greek word Politics. The stuff on there should be merged onto here. This needs to be checked out.WHEELER 01:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have put up a site called Wikipedia:Revisionism. It is something I have noticed. Please participate.WHEELER 23:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Republic?

Quote:

"republican form of government, i.e. representative democracy"

"Republic" is more frequently defined as a form of government with a head of state who is not a monarch, and there are numerous representative democracies that are not republics. Can we find a better definition? --GoldenRing 01:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Try: [[1]]

[[2]]

He notes that republic originally had the meaning that you mention but that it has taken on a more longwinded meaning that equates more or less to representative democracy. Additionally, even the governments that you mention that are not truely representative eg. the old Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China maintained the fiction of representation by holding show elections from time to time.Ace Diamond 02:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that your reference specifically says this is an American usage, not that there is anything wrong with that per se. I had in mind true representative democracies that do not consider themselves republics, rather than 'republics' that are not representative democracies. The main example would be the Commonwealth countries. --GoldenRing 05:50, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. So what features do republics have in common that set them apart from other forms of governments. It cannot only be that they are not headed by a monarch as that includes Cuba-a charismatic authoriarian state.Ace Diamond 14:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you think, maybe that is a little bit better?Ace Diamond 00:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a bit. On doing some more reading, it seems that Rome was in fact not anything like a republic as we know it. Aristotle's definition of a republic as 'the rule of law' shows the distinction then made - a form of government where the law rules, not an individual. On this basis, the definition, "a form of government with a head of state who is not a monarch," seems about as close as we are likely to get. This republic was quite definitely not a representative democracy - the senate was a body of aristocracy, a bit like the House of Lords, and they made the rules. The rules were presented to non-representative assemblies of citizens, who approved them or otherwise. The consuls, who were elected, then carried out the approved rules.

Note that by this definition Rome was not the first to have a republic, the Greeks at least got in first. But the Romans were the first to call it a republic, since it is a Latin word. They had only the very beginnings of representative democracy. What they did invent was the bicameral form of parliament, a point in favour of your text, "a government structure that allowed competing interests access to the decision making process." However, this definition also makes the United Kingdoms a republic.

So how about:

The Roman Republic is credited with significant innovation in forms of government. It was the first bicameral legislative system, which divided power between the patrician aristocracy and plebian general citizens. It also contained the beginnings of representative democracy, having various officers selected for fixed terms by popular election.

--GoldenRing 04:32, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I like it. Especially since it builds un the argument that progress in government grows out of greater participation from the governed. Ace Diamond 22:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

Rome did not invent the bicameral legislature. That was in Sumer, as shown in This book. ~~ Vessbot 00:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool, that is why everybody gets to contribute. Live and learn Ace Diamond 05:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what do you think?

I have been thinking of trashing the whole section about government and leaving that to articles on government. I want to replace it with descriptions of political behavior i.e. the aquisition of power, the distribution of power, and so on. maybe I'll post an outline here and people can comment. What do you think? Ace Diamond 05:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Competition

Couldn't politics be defined as the competition within or between parties to govern a state?

--jcroll 20:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes that is part of politics but only a small part.

Consider Tzarist Russia where there were no parties as we know them. The Tsar held absolute power. He distributed favor and extracted tax in such a way to keep all of the factions dependent on him. Politics often involved posturing within the Tsar's sphere.

Consider also the politics that occurs within religious, commercial, or academic institutions. There is no "state" to govern but there are factions to form into coalitions in the hope to garner power and resources.

Your question is a good one but remember that politics goes beyond the governance of a democratic state.Ace Diamond 22:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Content

I rewrote / expanded the introduction, mainly because the article opened with a highly controversial and overly conclusive definition of politics 'as such'. (The view that politics is, roughly, how any social group makes collective decisions.) It seems that any encyclopedia article about politics should begin by making it clear that politics often has something to do with government and the public sphere.

So far, the article is or has been skewed towards some rather idiosyncratic views (not 'wrong', just too heavily weighted towards a particular viewpoint that is by no means anything approaching a consensus view.) Much of the content reflects the view that politics is 'essentially' a zero-sum resource allocation game, that politics is more or less 'war by other means', that politics is essentially about domination, and the like. These sorts of views have been articulated well and defended strenuously by many political thinkers, but there's a great deal of disagreement. But there's a great deal of disagreement, and over the years, many political thinkers have claimed that politics is the opposite of force, that politics ceases to exist when it becomes a zero sum game, that politics is a distinctly human activity that is characterized by speech, debate, and ideas about what constitutes the 'good life' or a good society.

Anyway, I have two suggestions:

(1) There should be a more clear demarcation between 'theory' and 'practice', between philosophical debates about what politics is, how politics ought to be conducted, etc, and what kinds of political institutions, practices, and beliefs exist currently or have existed historically.

(2) The 'neutral point of view' would be best served by recasting much of the theoretical discussion as a description of 'ongoing debates'.

Hope this is helpful -- sorry if I got carried away!

You think I'm too cynical? Yes, there should be a line drawn between practice and philosophy but politics IS about decision making, isn't it? Who gains and who loses advantage is tied directly to dominance. The pursuit of the GOOD is often times secondary to the pursuit of survival (a form of the GOOD to be sure).

War is an extension (a failier perhaps) of politics. Mao called politics "war without bloodshed". Politics allows groups to make decisions without resorting to zero-sum games.Ace Diamond 19:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This assumes an evolutionary view of politics, and denies the possibility that national politics can be the governance of a nation for the good of all people, not just the ruling elite. --GoldenRing 01:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

7 Jul 2004 I reverted this to the version from june 25th partially because I believe that the old version to be superior but more importantly because the major edits that followed that date were unsigned and therefore impossible to discuss. If I've sinned let me know so that we can negotiate a compromise (that is afterall what politics is all about). And please, sign your work. Ace Diamond 00:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Power

With all due respect, how does this illuminate the definition of power?

"More generally, it can be considered the ability to change the liklihood of outcomes. The ability to impose one's will on others is very often not a totally dependable policy option. It comes in degrees, thus we can speak of the degree to which we can change the liklihood of outcomes. In politics one of the most subtle and effective kinds of "power" does not involve overt violence. Instead , it is the control of the agenda for deliberation. If you control what is considered proper for political discourse, what our options are for policy choice, you are indeed exercising real power."

I don't even know what the first three sentences mean. How else do you change outcomes except by imposing your will on another? In the fourth sentence you refer to overt violence and I agree but I hope that you can see that the implication of violence remains. Finally, to control the agenda is another way of imposing an agenda upon the debate.

Don't you agree that the concise definition (a paraphrase of Max Weber's) fills thae bill.Ace Diamond 01:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

intl links

I removed the eo: link because eo:Politiko is ambiguously about both political science and politics. Most or all links should be removed on eo: too. Andres 03:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ia: article seems to be about political science. Andres 03:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Major Prune

I plan to excise everything from Jetsam to Political Science to make this article more coherent. Now is the time to object.Ace Diamond 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)..............

biological genisis of politics

Is it too much to ask people to discuss major changes before deleting major portions/

I would be willing to debate the prehuman nature of political behavior. We could start with: [3]and Were chimps the first socialists? [4]

I'm tempted to revert that portion but would like to see some comments first. Ace Diamond 20:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it has to be asked whether this article, as currently constituted, is a useful reference -- perhaps there should be more of an emphasis on providing an annotated guide to subtopics. Trying to construct an article on the idea of politics itself almost certainly can never meet the 'neutral point of view' standard. As it stands, much of this sounds like politics as defined by an anthropologist: resources and dominance.

Unfortunately, that would be less fun, since the current approach allows people to do political philosophy, more or less. Still, if I were a college student or even high school student looking for a useful resource, this article would just leave me scratching my head. --Jag 03:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really? Politics is at its core about making decisions, isn't it? The decisions are very often about who gets what i.e. the distribution of resources. So it stands to reason that dominance would play a role in that distribution, at least I think so.

Then copmes the broad, rich field of ideology, philosophy, and strategy. Each of these should be seperate topics listed at the end.

I tried through out the article to avoid any ideological or philosophical POV and therefore I had to use a scientific approach.Ace Diamond 19:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Specie-centric POV

By limiting political behavior to homo sapiens, are we not denying the behavioral contributions of our primate ancestors?

Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Political Science is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power, i.e. the ability to impose one's will on another.

Is this a creationist POV?Ace Diamond 20:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Political Components

I think that the heading is confusing. We appear to be looking at ways of organizing governance. A city-state is different from an empire and yet each must be governed. If we can create a taxonomy of government types is questionable. But it would be fun, I can only imagine the controversy it would create.

In the mean time, maybe they should just be listed in alphabetical order.Ace Diamond 00:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bologna

It is also the study of the relatioship between influence and the influentials.

No it's not. Political science studies politics. Politics is an activity! Ace Diamond 15:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

announcing new NPOV proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with the nature of this page, I ask by what authority is this policy change being announced? An examination of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate shows that the vote was 58 to 50 against such a change.Ace Diamond 18:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon

"Napoleon Bonaparte is a notable case, he was a foreigner who took the place of a traditional authority." Napoleon was a foreigner? To the people he conquered in the German states, perhaps, but not to the his direct subjects, the French. The sentence is a run-on sentence as well, and doesn't really add anything. I shall delete posthaste!!

Well, OK, Napoleon was a member of a minor Corsican noble family who aspired to the French nobility. And, yes, Corsica was controled by France at the time, having recently acquired it from Genoa. But that misses the point doesn't it.

Napoleon took authority of France, a nation that had recently been ruled by a traditional authority, by virtue of his personality. He is the epitome of a charismatic authority figure. Ace Diamond 23:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political Power

Three sentences were added to this document today to which I object:

"It may be better for leaders to be feared than hated. Power is a scarce resource. Power used is power lost."

There is not source for these statements, and we cannot verify their accuracy. In the field of organizational politics, these statements are viewed as contingent -- true in some situations and not true in others.

I don't want to delete these sentences, but I think that improving on them could get lengthy, and it's not clear to me that including them in an encyclopedia article is necessary. Any suggestions on how we could change them? Mamawrites 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

These edits were reverted along with all the sections that were added, in this version [5], by the bold and confident User:Evercat. My previous request for suggestions on how to change them is now moot. Mamawrites 01:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

further definition

and any activity aimed at influencing those decisions.

I think that is covered under process, but OK.Ace Diamond 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

word origin

The word is derived from the Greek politika meaning "of the city".

No it isn't. Read the article further.Ace Diamond 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice Catch

Authority is the right to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to command, to determine, or to judge. Ace Diamond 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Authority/Legitimacy

You're close but are confusing authority with legitimacy. The guy with the biggest club can enforce behavior but may do so illegitimately. In fact as legitimacy becomes suspect greater levels of violence are required to to maintain authority. This is the principle behind non-violent resistance. Ace Diamond 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Authority implies legitimacy plus. The guy with the biggest club may have power, but he doesn't have authority. According to Robert Paul Wolff in In Defense of Anarchism: "Authority is the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel obedience, either through the use or threat of force." Hogeye 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

for anarchy, yes. But not for the state. The authority of state doesn't come from right since the state has no right for his authority. --Irgendwer 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that authority, legitimacy, and power are bound together. The use of power (i.e. force)can be authorized by a legitimate government for a legitimate purpose for example the arrest of a spree killer. Or an illigitimate government (an invader maybe) or for an illegitimate purpose.

As to the issue of anarchy, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I buy the notion that a government is given legitimacy through a social contract with the governed. Ace Diamond 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchy

Some political ideologies, notably anarchism, deny the existence of legitimate power. Anarcho-capitalists give legitimate power to property owners and private arbitrators but do not grant it to the coercive state.

Do anarchists believe that some people obey the police because they think (rightly or wrongly) that the policeman has a legitimate claim to power? And therefore, legitimate power exists? Isn't this a provocation and therefore POV?

Why submit to Traditional authority?

In the section Authority and legitimacy, in subsection Traditional, there is this sentence:

Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way."

Is it just me or does this sound a bit off? Also, might not the generally unpleasant treatment afforded those challenging traditional authority play a role? Lambiam 15:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The carrot and the stick (see the Gompers quote)has always been the way that those with porwer keep it. Look at the Prince for how violence is meeted out early and reward slowly. And don't forget that it is the powerful who compose the arguments that "It is gods will" or "it is our heritage" but the powerless buy the arguments and submit often because we've always done it that way. Right or wrong they have always done that way. Ace Diamond 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Politics exclusive to Human beings?

"...politics is observed in all human group interactions, including...". It seems this sentence takes for granted that politics is a an exclusivly human trait. If we are to accept the earlier defination of politics as "a process by which collective decisions are made within groups.", than ANY group of animals capable of decision making should consitiute a politcal enitity. I can not see how the social heirarchy of a tribe of chimpanzee would fail to meet the test collective decision making. Even animals groups with less developed reasoning, and social structure like Lions and Hyenas, have decision making processes determined by thier group dynamic. I have thus edited the article to reflect this.--Davidmintz 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote the original introduction to this article, I made reference to dominance hierarchies in a section called the biological origins of politics. It was edited out. Rather than get involved in an ugly game of "yes it is/no it isn't" I moved the section to an article of its own: see dominance hierarchy.--Ace Diamond 14:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee, this is a strange, yet interesting topic. Kudos on thinking that politics could be used for animals. Could you elaborate on how chimps could use democracy? Are politics exclusive to mammals? This is not sarcasm, like it might sound. Mr.Weirdo 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this article out. http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199907120006.htm You will be amazed!Ace Diamond 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a pretty nice article. Thank you. Still David, I am curious if politics are only observed in mammals. And I'm not paying money for a thousand word essay. --Mr.Weirdo 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and politics

I have started the above, and welcome additions (g). Jackiespeel 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions re-written

I've taken the alternative definitions out of the introductory paragraph, added a couple of quotes and referenced as well as I could. The Lasswell quote needs a reference but I could not verify it. I removed unreferenced opinion. Ace Diamond 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed definition of politics. The old definition, "the process of making decisions within groups," is too wide. For example, I'm a member of many groups. I have many processes of making decisions, say, about when to brush my teeth. So those are instances of the process of making decisions within groups. But they're not politics. If politics is about making decisions, it's about making collective decisions. Somebody has changed it back. I guess there are persons who think that their process of deciding when to brush their teeth is part of politics.

I don't get you... at all. I changed it back because the definition you wrote didn't say what politics is but what it could be, which isn't useful in an article. I really don't understand what you mean about brushing teeth - do you mean to say that it takes a group to tell you to brush your teeth? --Alex ^{talk here} 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is written is exactly the same, but written in a more specific way (i.e is instead of can be or whatever it was...) --Alex ^{talk here} 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics is a process, not just "may be defined as". Be bold, be bold. And let us lose the passive voice. What do you think? Ace Diamond 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

destroy the political processPOLITICS IS CRAP BORING WHATEVER IT IS A WASTE OF SPACE BUT EVERY ONE LOVES IAN PASILEY AND TONY BLAIR...

I am only 18 but i know that politics in its particular form used by most of the world is or will be abused based its internal development.

Politician

Hoping that some of you here might be able to lend a hand on the politician article. It touches on some noteworthy debates, but needs work. --HailFire 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How does a Political Scientist look at Homeless can some one answer my question?

Why don't you try posting a message on User:Ace Diamond's talk page? He says he is a political scientist and may be able to answer your question.--Mr.Weirdo 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on the definition

I tried rewording the intro. Assuming you think I got it wrong, please don't revert. Let's work on it and make it better. The talk above makes it pretty clear that may editors feel that the previous definition didn't capture the essense of politics. ike9898 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Of the whole article, the introduction seems most correct. Let's examine:

- Politics is the process by which (groups make decisions) individuals or relatively small groups attempt to exert influence over the actions of an organization. Although the term is most (typically)commonly applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in (all) many human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

"individuals or relatively small..." is filled with words that make the meaning less clear (relatively small, attempt to exert) whereas politics is about decision making in groups.

If you don't like "typically" I guess "commonly" will do but leave out the "most". It is superfluous.

Finally, I dare any one to identify a human group that does not display political behavior.Ace Diamond 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about what you wrote, though, it might be worth our while to include a section on leadership as a feature of politics. How do individuals and cabals influence the overall process? Ace Diamond 03:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the above; it just seems that politics not quite the means by which groups make decisions. That doesn't capture the essense for me. I am by no means an expert, but it seems to me the politics has a lot to do with ambitious individuals exerting influence on the decision making process. Aren't some decision making processes more politicized than others?

I think that you are focusing too much on the players and not enough on the game. Football is not about the quarterback or the coach it is about the competition. Personalities effect the outcome but only to a limited degree.

Secondly, the actors need not be ambitious in a material way. They may genuinely wish to improve their communities through the political process.

Finally, I think that you might mean that some decision making has a more formalized process, complete with rules for debate, requirements for participation, or hierarchies. But almost any group interaction can be viewed as a political exchange, even a family's dining decision. Will we have Italian or Greek? How will compromise now create advantage in another negotiation? Etc.Ace Diamond 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I won't argue that my wording is correct. I just feel that politics is more than just decision making. Maybe it is the application of strategy in the process of decision making. ike9898 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Strategic choices have a place in the discussion of the process. as does leadership.Ace Diamond 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ace's 2nd comment. Yes, I think that leadership is an essential component. Individuals sucessful in politics lead others. Seems like this should somehow be reflected in the lead section of this article. ike9898 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not state that there are two (or multiple) conceptions, one as decision-making process, another more theoretical explanation that views any action by an individual motivated by a particular end as political. I agree with Ike in that this narrow definition does not capture the multiple ways this word is commonly understood. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should reflect these conceptions137.222.120.90 10:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

if 'politics' can be seen as the plural of 'political', perhaps this might make things clearer. A political act is any with defined social motives/ends, thus politics is the collection and organisation of these acts in a coherent way. The process of interpretation and definition of these acts by individuals through discourse is what defines politics. This may or may not demand decision-making. I'm sure there are references for these statements 137.222.120.90 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Normative faces

Someone else's comment I am moving here. It was in the article after the section on Normative faces..." ike9898 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole paragraph uses words that are unnecessarily long, and as easy as it could be to understand the content, (the concepts here are actually quite simple to understand) the writer has chosen to overcomplicate the issue through overplayed academic jargon.

Help needed in table dispute

At Talk:Politics of the Netherlands#Turning the tables there is a dispute over which tables to use to show the election results and cabinets and such and where to put them. We're not getting any further input there, so I now ask for help here. The main things are which orientation to use, what information to put in which tables, which tables we need in the first place and where they should go. (Btw, which info can go in a table is also influenced by the orientation, in this case the names of (and links to) the cabinets.) The short version of this is which of these two tables is 'better'. DirkvdM 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics = overkill

There has to be some made-up words, I mean green, left, right, top, bottom, left wing, right wing, anarch-this, monarch-that, comun-those. After reading I think I switched political parties about a dozen times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.107.84 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

more definitions

The following section was culled from previous revisions and demonstrates that the definition of politics is fluid. I propose that additional definitions be posted here. Ace Diamond 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative definitions of politics have been proposed that fulfill the needs of differing perspectives. They include:
- Dictionary definitions, for example, "the art and science of government"
- Textbook definitions, notably, a "process of conflict resolution in which support is mobilized and maintained for collective projects". -- An Introduction to Government and Politics ... Dickerson and Flanagan
- Theorists, such as Harold Lasswell, who defined politics as "who gets what, when, where, and how."
- and Practitioners like
- Mao Zedong, who said "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
- and Otto von Bismarck's cryptic remark, "Politics is the art of the possible."

Ace Diamond 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- In general, politics can be considered the art of navigating through tensions among multiple "I"s and the "we" to achieve collectively desired ends.

religion

have you ever noticed that a majority of presidents belive in god or claim they do? i think that if someone who was satanic ran for president then there would be no way he would win. it seems like america is racist on religon, well not all of america but some are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trackrunner (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

This article is poor...but I'm working on it

I don't know how it is that such an important topic has an article that's assessed as "Start-Class" and that, until I edited it today, consisted of unsourced original research from beginning to end. I'm going to keep working on this article, as we really need to improve it to featured article status as soon as possible. Really, there are many less important topics that currently have far better articles. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now improved it and am taking it to peer review. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT

This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.

I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials, (at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.

I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those who are served BY the public.

This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further, in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.

So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).

Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:

   * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
   * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST

know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.

   * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the

incumbent is listed FIRST, and, IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.

   * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
   * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.

Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Also, issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules above.

If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?

If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?

Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?

Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?

Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?

As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.

The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.

The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds.

To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:

   * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time

   * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time

   * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time

The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power.

No, this isn't the proper forum for proposals like this. It's the page for discussing improvements to the Politics article, which must be based in established fact, not your own ideas. Please read WP:NOT. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You go away for a little and things happen

I've been watching this rewrite for a while and am impressed. This is a much better article than last I looked.

I purged the additional resources section after appending a couple of the references to the wikified refference section. This whole section was a leftover from an attempt to accomadate divergent definitions. That attempt was subsequently deleted without removing the footnotes. They were not proper footnotes anyway.

I have some suggestions though. The leading definition, I think, should be more user friendly. It should be written in everyday language. I am going to restore an old definition and then allow the rest of the article make its case.

I believe that the section from political power to thr top of a pragmatic view of power belongs in a broader discussion of political power, i.e. the political power article.

What do you think Ace Diamond 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, particularly when it comes to the section on political power; there's nothing much there that can't be covered under Political power. Go ahead and edit. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Politics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have been watching this article for some time and have made some minor edits. Overall I think that it misses. The article is about politics but slips into descriptions of ideology and governance. Both of these articles have areas of their own. I don't believe that this article will succede until it focuses on the practice of politics. Ace Diamond 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Check out this organized semi contribution to this wikipedia article: http://bubba540.googlepages.com/

Last edited at 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)