Talk:Third party (politics)

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

Third party is discriminatory term

I added "innumerate" to the opening paragraph a few days ago. It helps. They not only compete against the duopoly, they are trying to abolish the anti-democratic 2-party system. A small party NOT trying to abolish the 2-party system (if there are any that foolish) would still be a "non-duopoly party". In most cases, however, no such categorization according to size is helpful. It is added merely to gratuitously ridicule small parties. "My daddy is bigger than your daddy! Nyah, nyah, nyah!" There is no democratic reason to ignore or discriminate against a party because it is small. Let the voters choose instead according to quality. Korky Day 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to report that it took until 11:43, 30 May 2008 for a colleague to remove "(innumerate)" from the article, correctly identifying it as an "editorial" on KD's part.
--Jerzy•t 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third party has been described as:

Person or entity not party to an agreement but with an interest in the agreement. [1]

someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction
a political party organized in opposition to the major parties in a two-party system [2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.7.55 (talk) 08:17, :18, & :20, 28 March 2009‎

Those links are to http://www.carabinshaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1230612.html and http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn respectively.
Third party is a dab page that may or not deal adequately with the two other meanings above, but this was not in any case the place to discuss it at any time in 2009, nor probably anytime since.
--Jerzy•t 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazziz faire third party?

Heard of Thrid party US called Lazziz faire(Cant say if I spelled it right!) Lets us be Like a Libertarian Party mores however!CraddockKin (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tories as third party

In the lead section's 2nd 'graph (which concerns the UK specifically) i removed the third sent, which read

So it would follow that in different countries within the UK there are many different third parties.

What appears after "that" may or not be true, but it does not follow from the two preceding sentences -- nor even from any collection of assertions in the article. Nor can i see any point in keeping track which major parties are 3rd parties in some jurisdiction (be it a country, or some much smaller constituency). If you think that 'graph deserves another sentence, please ask

Is it likely that someone cares?
If so, would an exhaustive table be more useful than a prose account?

--Jerzy•t 01:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]