Jump to content

Talk:Politics of the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States is not a Democracy

[edit]

Just a slight nit pick, the article mentions the United States being a democracy, but that is not correct. The United States is a Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.115.72 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'democracy' implied by conversational English includes the specific definition of a 'Democratic Republic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore should lean more formal than conversational. I think the references should be changed where appropriate to say democratic republic, or at the very least just republic. MQinator (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In formal language, the term "democracy" also encompasses "democratic republic." The attempt to remove the word "democracy" from descriptions of the American political system is nothing more than right-wing newspeak. Acsenray (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not newspeak. It's plain English / political terminology. The US is a democracy when discussing broadly (as against Chinese one-party rule or the Saudi kingdom;) it is specifically a democratic republic when identifying the form of its government (as against Athens or Rome.) So it's appropriate for some places in the article but not others. -LlywelynII (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RS viewpoint is what Wikipedia gives: "Most scholars believe the United States is a democracy." says a leading pol sci textbook, Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, Jerry Goldman The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World(2008) Page 31. </ref>. A team of prominent historians says "Given that the United States is a democracy..." Meg Jacobs, William J. Novak, Julian E. Zelizer, eds. The democratic experiment: new directions in American political history (2003) p 277. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im pretty sure that no state could be a 'true' democracy if we worry too much about specifics. I can't think of a single place of significance where all citizens vote for all issues. And by this definition, the electoral college in the US is the antithesis of a democracy; Hard to call a country a 'true' democracy when someone getting the most votes isnt necessarily a win. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly non-necessary sentence

[edit]

Please forgive my level of comprehension but I really couldn't get hold of what the sentence "The United States is one of the world's developed democracies where third parties have the least political influence." wants to imply and what purpose it serves considering the flow of the article. I hesitantly guess there was a "one of the world's most developed democracies" in between there and despite the sentence being biased that way, probably it had a point then. I guess somebody gotta clarify this sentence. Cheers. --Stultiwikiatext me 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to better reflect the content below. Next question: Do we have an adequate reference for this sentence: "In the absence of multi-seat congressional districts, proportional representation is impossible and third parties cannot thrive."? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading?

[edit]

Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading.

  • Book Review: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer; American Politics and the Second Gilded Age by Robert C. Lieberman (Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Columbia University) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2011; excerpt ...

    Hacker and Pierson refreshingly break free from the conceit that skyrocketing inequality is a natural consequence of market forces and argue instead that it is the result of public policies that have concentrated and amplified the effects of the economic transformation and directed its gains exclusively toward the wealthy. Since the late 1970s, a number of important policy changes have tilted the economic playing field toward the rich. Congress has cut tax rates on high incomes repeatedly and has relaxed the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, resulting in windfall profits for the wealthiest Americans.

See Reagan Administration and Bush tax cuts, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial market, Glass-Steagall Act, Conservatism in the United States, Great Depression in the United States and Late-2000s financial crisis, Tea Party movement and Occupy movement in the United States (Occupy Wall Street and Occupy movement), ...

Also see Inside Job (film), Plutocracy and Wealth 99.181.130.94 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Suffrage section needs major revision

[edit]

The suffrage movement did not suddenly arise because black men could vote. It arose decades before that, beginning with the original conference at Seneca Falls in 1848, chaired by none other than Frederick Douglas. The push for female suffrage was put on hold during the Civil War, but when the 13th and 14th Amendments were being discussed, and Douglas made it clear he would not support extending suffrage to women. Susan B Anthony became infuriated, was very rude, and walked out to found a separate organization to push exclusively for female suffrage.

As its written now, the article almost reads that women got jealous, so they wanted the vote too.

Not only NPOV, but bad history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.94 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK DOES directly elect their members of parliament; they do not vote for a party

[edit]

This article formally made a difference between the US and the UK, in that in the US, people vote for a specific person for congress, as opposed to a party. By implication, it said that in the UK people vote for a party.

This is not true. Voters in the UK vote for individual members of parliament. This person may be a member of a party, but may also not, and may change parties during their term of office, without having to submit to another election.

I've changed the article to refer to "some other parliamentary systems."

--Deregnaucourt (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of recent student edits

[edit]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shift in Republican/Democrat political position

[edit]

Going to raise an "unthinkable" idea here, but shouldn't there be a mention of the rightwards shift in policy of both major political parties? In fact, going further, shouldn't there be a mention of how the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has grown, and how moderate Republicans have been marginalized in the party? 86.180.122.221 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant fact that has been published in a reliable source may be added to the article. How the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has grown, and how moderate Republicans have been marginalized in the party would seem to supported by numerous sources. However, they do need to be cited. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really about to take the words that liberal Democrats use when characterizing members of the Tea Party movement and call them fact? That term is only used by Democrats to demean their conservative Republican opposition. Describing the Tea Party and conservative factions of the Republican Party as the "extreme right wing" is tantamount to calling them far-right, in the same camp as the Nazis and the Fascists, this is simply not true. While Hitler and Mussolini deprived people of their civil rights, expanded the government to the point that it controlled everything, and completely disregarded their nation's constitutions, the Tea party advocates for more protection of civil rights, a more limited government, and a strict interpretation of the constitution. Now granted there are extremists in the Republican Party, but there to are also extremist elements in Democratic Party as well. I would agree that the Tea Party is on the right-wing end of the political spectrum, but by no means are they "extreme," and again this term is only used by one party and those who activley oppose the Tea Party, so clearly they would have a biased and would want to use such a term to demean their opponents. Now I would agree that the right-wing of the Republican Party has grown and it is worthy of mention, but it should be portrayed NEUTRALLY. In I agree addition moderate Republicans have been marginalized to some extent simply because their policies and proposals are know longer popular with the Republican Party's core voters.
Actually, I am not aware of any initiative by Democrats seeking to disenfranchise legitimate voters, aimed at specific demographics, but it appears to have become a conservative Republican priority. How can this be characterized as anything but a deprivation of civil liberties? Activist (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the alleged "rightwards shift in policy by both major parties" I simply disagree, except for the Republican Party, while the Democratic Party remains relatively unchanged, for instance President Obama's re-election campaign was as far left as his first campaign. I believe that in comparison to 2008 government policy has shifted rightwards, but only because the Republicans now control the House of Representatives, so whenever the Republicans are elected to the White House and take the Senate, it will shift rightwards again, then swing leftwards when the Democrats regain power. But again with regards to a shift to right in policy, Republicans yes, Democrats no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.4.13 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Political System of the United States.svg and File:Politisches System der Vereinigten Staaten.svg

[edit]

Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The main talk is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics (but I don't know if somebody recognizes it there ;)[reply]

  1. The electoral college should come from the states, not directly from the people.
  2. The Senate is elected every 6 not 2 years. Supreme Court should be level with the President & Congress.
  3. What does '§' mean?
  4. President does not usually appoint or control the Vice President.
  5. State courts are missing.
  6. Congress does not appoint or control the Supreme Court, except to approve the President's appointment.
  7. The Senate does not appoint or control the Cabinet or Armed Forces, except to approve the President's appointment.
  8. The state levels do NOT vary at all from state-to-state.—GoldRingChip 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! =)
  1. Do you mean that the dotted line showing the state- and federal level should surround the Electoral College, too?
  2. Oh, I'll correct that.
  3. "§" means legislation/laws (I thought that would be self-explanatory..). With what would you replace it?
  4. Ok, should I connect the Vice President with the electoral college instead?
  5. I'll add them (but these have to be connected with the state legislature not with the people, right?)
  6. Shall I delete the lines, or use another color to indicate the approval?
  7. See 6
  8. Uhm, ok, I could delete that indication, but really the same they are not, too, are they?
Greetings — Allrounder (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a new version (before - after). — Allrounder (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're learning is that government is not so simple that it breaks down in pictograms.
  1. In some (but not all) states, voters elect courts
  2. What do the different shapes mean?
  3. What does "Executive Office" mean?
  4. Supreme Court doesn't veto legislation; it interprets all laws and works out the conflicts among regulations, practices, legislation, and constitution.
  5. VP is not part of Congress, just a Senate tie-breaker. Make VP the bottom part of the Prez's triangle with an arrow going over to the Senate.
  6. Remove § from legislation. Other laws have sections, too.
  7. Vetos are "overridden" not "overwritten."
    • And Overrides are by two-thirds vote (omit majority) in "both" not "each" house.
  8. Why not put President ABOVE other Executive boxes?
  9. What does "The state levels can vary from state to state" mean? —GoldRingChip 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said: An organigram doesn't necessarily have to show every detail of a political system. It explains the main processes in the government, so you do can almost break it down in a pictogram (compare it eg with the current one used in the German article: File:Politisches System der USA.svg - this graphic is bad)
  1. Right - that's why it's indicated: "The state levels can vary from state to state"
  2. different shapes? Triangle means head of something (a person), rectangle stands for an organ and a rounded rectangle means legislation.
  3. Executive Office of the President of the United States
  4. But it can veto laws - more is not indicated
  5. In this way it wouldn't be clear that he is chairman of the Senate. And regarding to this position you do can say he is part of the Congress though.
  6. § is (at least in Europe) a common sign for legislation - I really don't understand, how you can confuse it... See eg the political organigram of Germany
  7. Ok I'll change that (might be because I'm not a native speaker..)
  8. because than the connections would fail. But he is slightly above the other executive bodys though.
  9. see eg No. 1 (not every state is structured in the same way) — Allrounder (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Supreme Court cannot veto laws.
  2. § is not a common sign for legislation in the U.S.. It's the common sign for "section" which is often used with legislation, but not more than that.—GoldRingChip 02:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. but? Shall I add "repeal" to the description?
  2. Ok, here in Europe/Germany it's pretty clear.. I'll change that. — Allrounder (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New version: before - after - better? — Allrounder (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. VP isn't in Congress. State legislatures do not appoint State courts; Supreme Court does not repeal laws ("repeal" has a legal meaning which is not what happens here); not all people 18+ are enfranchised; the blue line should be labelled "appoints or controls" (because it's not "and")—GoldRingChip 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VP is filled with another color (blue stands for the executive branch), so you can clearly see that he's not part of the legislative. That as the chairman of the Senate he is in some way part of the Congress you can't deny though. If I place him above the Congress-rectangle, it would seem like he's the head of the whole Congress. If I place him beside the Congress you don't see his funktion as the chairman of the Senate. I think in the current way, everybody understands the relation of the bodies..
  • State legislatures do not appoint State courts. In most of the states they do (aren't they?) - that there are deviations is indicated in the subscript. You wanted me to add the state judiciary - if you want to I surely can remove this box, so there are no misunderstandings.
  • Ok, how do you call it if not "repeal"?
  • Shall I add "normally 18 or more"?
  • Ok, I'll change it to "or". — Allrounder (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Don't be too strict with the graphic: an organigram doesn't want to replace an whloe article - it only shows the main factors in a political system and IMO the pictogram does this very fine. Btw: the current image used in the German article (File:Politisches System der USA.svg) is much worse - that's why I made this image originally..[reply]
 Done. Satisfied? — Allrounder (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=615525533"