Talk:List of political parties in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Redirect?

I think we should redirect this to Political parties of the world, where the list is more thorough and gets updated regularly.

I disagree - Both lists are important and should be maintained. Who really wants to page through ALL political parties of the entire planet just to see a listing for a particular country? I sure don't. --maveric149

I'd list the most prominent parties in PPOTW (e.g. for the US: gop, dem, lib, green, reform) with more detailed lists in separate articles for each country. Good or bad idea? --Damian Yerrick

Good idea. PPoTW (now LoPP) will be outrageously long if we include every single party from every single country. DanKeshet 18:03 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

Specific Parties

Removed Party

I removed the United States Natural Medicine Party because it appears from it website it is one person/candidate party who ran for Attorney General in 2000 in the State of Washington.

• [1]

Expansionist Party

Expansionist Party probably wants putting in somewhere Secretlondon 23:42, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

That's nothing but a website. --Wik 23:57, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

If it deserves to be an article, it deserves to be not an orphan. Morwen 18:04, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Spartacist League

As far as I know, the Spartacist League is a political organization, not a party. If so, it should be removed from the list. Sir Paul 01:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Missing Information

Information that is missing here is about general character of the US parties (i.e. that these are non-ideological parties etc)

Headings

The headings "Other minor parties that have endorsed candidates", "Historical political parties", and "Current and historical regional political parties" overlap each other. Since almost all minor parties are regional, I suggest: "Current major parties", "Current third parties", "Current minor and regional parties", and "Historical parties". Mcarling 13:47 Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian and Natural Law Parties

Regarding the revert a couple weeks ago. The main point is the disclaimer "The Libertarian Party is the only current third party organized in all 50 US states". I'm not sure what the standards are for "organized", but I don't think this is objectively verifiable. I checked the Constitution Party website, and they list a contact person for every state and DC; assuming that guy has a friend, isnt't that an organization? Furthermore, I don't think that including this phrase is really necessary or relevant in this context. Being "the only third party" to do something just isn't that impressive, even if it is true; it just means that they are one of three parties to do it. (Incidentally, I'm a former LP member and remain sympathetic to them)

As for the Natural Law Party, what is the source for saying that it "only exists on paper as required by law until debts are paid off"? It looks like they still have candidates in elections at least in Nevada. They presumably still have access to the presidential ballot in a few states, too, which could come into play for the Nader campaign. Don't get me wrong: they're clearly dying, but they don't appear to be quite dead yet. - Nat Krause 10:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think being the only third party organized in all 50 states would be significant if it were true, but I'm not convinced it's true for the Libertarian Party. Your research would seem to show that it's not true, so I think it should be removed unless and until someone can provide compelling evidence to support it.

As for the Natural Law Party, according to the August Ballot Access News, "The Natural Law Party... has no presidential candidate (although it has candidates for other office)." So it belongs under the heading of Current minor and regional parties that have endorsed candidates, not under Historical political parties. Jwolfe 22:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. - Nat Krause 16:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Being organized as a political party in a particular state is a legal matter and it is verifiable. The requirements vary from state to state. If a party is running candidates in a particular state with the party name on the ballot (and the Libertarians are in all 50 states), then there is an official party organization in that state. Also, the Libertarian National Committee recognizes affiliate political parties that are officially recognized by their respective states in all 50 states, and delegates from all 50 states attend Libertarian national conventions. Mcarling 14:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By your definition, the Libertarian Party is not organized in all 50 states. It is not recognized in Ohio, and none of its candidates will appear on the ballot in Ohio with the Libertarian label. Jwolfe 14:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna are both on the ballot in Ohio with the Libertarian label. Mcarling 14:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik and Campagna will be listed on the ballot in Ohio as "Other-party candidate". See, for example, the candidate list at Franklin County Board of Elections web site [2]. I'm aware of two other Libertarians on the ballot in Ohio--one will also be listed as "Other-party candidate" and the other is in a non-partisan race.

In October, 2003, the Libertarian Party filed a petition to be recognized in Ohio as a political party and the Secretary of State refused to validate it on a technicality. The party sued in federal district court (LPO v. Blackwell, c2:04-08) and lost. See [3] and [4]. Therefore, the Libertarians had to file a petition to get Badnarik/Campagna on the ballot using the "independent" method, which only permits using the labels "Other-party candidate" or "Non-party candidate" or using no label. Jwolfe 19:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Former location of "Standard for 3rd Party" section

It is now a subsection of #Article section on most significant parties

new Populist Party

The addition of "Populist Party" to the list was deleted recently by an editor, on the theory that this is an organization "on paper only," for the narrow and now-expired purpose of allowing Ralph Nader to gain ballot access in 2004, with no intention of even operating as an actual political party. However, although I don't expect the new Populist Party to accomplish much, my information is that, in at least one state where it is a recognized party with ballot access for the party's eventual nominees (if any), the new Populist Party has evidently been holding meetings since the 2004 election and is making plans for electoral activity, so I would like to restore the new Populist Party to the list, with a notation that it has nothing to do either either the historical Populist Party or the more recent David Duke / Bo Gritz organization.

Please provide some kind of source. The list is polluted enough with organizations that aren't a party in any meaningful sense; I see no reason to include this "party" without some kind of verifiable evidence that it even exists beyond a strictly technical sense. RadicalSubversiv E 00:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Idependence Party of yada yada

• could we add an amusing little anecdote about how the INDEPENDCE PARTY is a super right wing fringe party who garners membership almost entirely from people who intend to register as independents, but wind up checking the wrong box? and accidently registering as members of the Independece Party, I find it funny is all, and it might be a nice way to liven up the article--172.166.227.71 20:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Also funny are your 3 different spellings of independence. Korky Day 09:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party USA not a 3rd party

Revolución included the Socialist Party USA among the current third parties. However, a quick perusal of the 2004 Election Results from the Clerk of the House shows that the only states in which the Socialist Party USA had ballot access were Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and New Jersey, which have a total of 77 electoral votes between them. Since winning all of these states would not be sufficient to win the election, the Socialist Party USA was not a 3rd party but a minor party.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That might be true, but eventually I want to convince all of you Wikipedians that having any such categories is inherently biased, arbitrary, and destructive of a democratic process. Also, the terms "third party" and "third parties", as used here, are innumerate. All of that merely helps perpetuate the 2-party system, a position Wikipedia should not be taking. The view from Canada - Korky Day 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reform Party

I know the Reform Party is dying. I also know that they put Nader on enough ballots in 2004 (although thru dubious means) to be listed with the other three parties in the Current third parties section of the article. Please explain why, given the wording of that section, the Reform party shouldn't be moved up.--Fredrik Coulter 01:55, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Whether Nader was their "nominee" in any real sense is somewhat dubious. Moreover, there weren't enough Reform Party ballot lines to give him a mathematical chance for victory -- he appeared on the ballot as an independent in most states. RadicalSubversiv E 05:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's pathetic that we have these kinds of discussion. Please read my comment in the discussion of the article "Third party (United States)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Third_party_%28United_States%29#The_existence_of_this_article_is_proof_of_partisan_bias

My comment has the headline "The existence of this article is proof of partisan bias" Korky Day 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Franklin Party

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think it is very unlikely that the American Nazi Party and the Communist Party USA are both affiliated to the so-called 'Bob Franklin Party', which does not actually seem to exist. The person who put that was probably just trying to smear the CPUSA by saying they were associated with the ANP. --Otware 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Otware. I wonder if there was a student with a teacher named Bob Franklin who did that. I mean look at the NAZI party one..... I think the Bob Franklin parts should be removed

Bull Moose

Teddy Rosevelt's comeback bid was as a Bull-Mooser. Merecat 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Party?

Can anyone confirm if it is or is not a actual political party?

Pirate Party

This is US political parties, not sweedish.

There is a US Pirate Party as well. - http://www.pirate-party.us/

• While I don't about a national Pirate party, there was a Pirate party candidate in Iowa in the 2006 midterm elections - James F. Hill, who ran for U.S. Representative for District 1 and received appx. 1% of the vote. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is registered appropriately with the IRS, and is trying to get ballot acccess in several states. It was also offered ballot space in Connecticut by the Constitution party there (declined due to short notice) 68.211.102.92 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

is this not affliated to the international pirate party movement? 91.135.10.170 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SDs and DSA

To my knowledge, neither the Social Democrats USA or Democratic Socialists of America have ever had candidates for public office. DSA is essentially a caucus in the Democratic Party, and while it sometimes makes endorsements for Democratic primary elections, it can't be considered an actual political party. SDUSA is pretty much defunct, and never seems to have endorsed candidates for public office even when it was active.

I believe both of them are better considered political advocacy groups than political parties, and so have removed them from this list. I would appreciate it if anyone who disagrees leaves a note here before reverting. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the RCP rejects electoral politics and doesn't seem to have nominated any candidates since Carl Dix campaigned as an "anti-candidate" in the '80s, I guess it should also be removed from the list. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be put into the "historical" section. Korky Day 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a subcategory for parties that are formed and operated as political parties, but do not actually conduct electoral campaigns. This would include both the RCP and the CPUSA, which hasn't nominated candidates under its own ballot line in more that a few times in the last 20 years. DSA's inclusion would depend on whether it was structured like a party (there may be several models), or whether it is structured like a political action committee or some other organizational model. DJ Silverfish 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, though it might take some work to figure out which minor parties have nominated their own candidates (on ballot lines or as independents) and which (like the CPUSA) have endorsed some of other parties. I'm also not clear on what specific criteria would be used to determine if an organization were operated like a political party. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The CPUSA is still a party, even if they seldom nominate or endorse candidates. Only if they decided not to do so any more would they cease to be a political party. Korky Day 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in one sense of the word "party". Offer evidence that that is an encyclopedic sense.
--Jerzy•t 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the content?

You guys are backwards. Many of the parties in the united states are not mentioned plus on top of that, there are no articles about them. I don't care that you hate southerners, or that you hate northerners or minorities. What I do care about is that the whole point of this website is preserved. You have to have all of the parties weather you like them or not. Here are the parties not on this site that need to be (there are more, i don't know them all): Falconist party, American Fascist Party, New Federalist Party, Commonwealth party, Boston Tea Party (political party), Common Good Party, Common Sense Party, Confederate Party, and the list goes on. I am angry that you individuals have not fixed this problem because of your bias. I will say again: I don't care that you hate one group of people or another (“rednecks” are hated by many people on Wikipedia). Just use common sense. I want those red links to be blue now!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.156.42 (talk)

Well, I am trying to add in some parties slowly as the Boston Tea Party (political party) has already been added. I will try to submit some articles about the Falconist party, American Fascist Party, New Federalist Party, Commonwealth party, Common Good Party, Common Sense Party, Confederate Party so they are on Wikipedia. Then they can be added to this article. I already have an article about the Canary Party which I am creating which I'll add as a party on this list. I understand your anger toward this. I didn't like the the missing links either. --108.3.157.32 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some Much Needed Adds

Because of lack of information, I added the American Fascist Party (it is a party, it stays weather you like it or not), the Falconist Party, and the Commonwealth Party. I don't know the dates of their founding but someone else can find out. DO NOT DELETE ANY OF THESE PARTIES, THEY ARE REAL AND SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. IF YOU DELETE THEM THEN YOU ARE GOING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA! long live Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.108.124 (talk)

Superhappy Party

This has been removed, citing "vandalism", but the Superhappy Party is recognized by the state of Nevada, which should qualify it as a genuine political party. They may be a joke, but unless someone comes up with a statement to that effect, should we doubt their sincerity? The Natural Law party was not a joke, even though their platform was based on new-agey transcendental meditation nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.1.255 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it to List of frivolous political parties, which seems the best place for it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Party

I removed the Mountain Party from the Political parties in U.S. history list. I did this because the Mountain Party was admitted to the Green Party as a state affiliate. [5]. While it no longer operates on its own in federal elections the party remains a viable entity in West Virginia, there situation is very similar to that of Constitution Party affiliates American Independent Party, Independent American Party of Nevada. Highground79 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that your second removal was from a list of historic parties, mostly defunct. Is there an explanation for this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the party is not history, it still exists. The Mountain Party had always been a West Virgina only party, this remains true today (Mountain Party remains ballot qualified) with the expection that the party is a state affiliate of the Green Party. The Mountain Party countinues to operate under its original name and with the same leadership so rather then being a historic party it would fall under the heading Category:Green Party (United States) by state. Highground79 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But in this list, it does belong one place or the other. Not all the historic parties are defunct, and some of the defunct ones were absorbed into larger parties (the Anti-Nebraska Party, by the Republicans, for example). If they did operate independently, they belong here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing

i think Silver Party and Silver Republican Party are missing? please confirm. thanx. Enlarge 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Youth International Party

No love for the Yippies? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, none. A political movement, but a party only in name. Parties run candidates. Any real candidacies run by YIP? (Pigs need not apply.)
  --Jerzy•t 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  

• I'll look into this as well...

--108.3.157.32 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

4th of July Party

There's currently a candidate using this ballot label in Iowa (Dan Cesar for State Rep. in District 90). Does such a party actually exist, or is this just a ballot label being used by a de facto independent candidate? -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Short answer? Yes, it's a party - most likely a non-notable local third party, but a party nonetheless - Iowa law would treat it the same as it would treat the Libertarian Party or the Green Party, for example. I note also that Project Vote Smart is taking the same approach and has listed his party as 4th of July Party. [6] --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Long answer? Iowa has specific rules designating what a "political party" is - note however this state-specific definition of party will be different than the definition generally. Under Iowa law, a political party is "a party which, at the last preceding general election, cast for its candidate for president of the United States or for governor, as the case may be, at least two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for that office at that election." Therefore, under Iowa law the only political parties would be the Republican and Democratic parties, as the others listed on the ballot had less than 2% of the vote. However, Iowa law also allows for non-party political organizations to nominate candidates for the ballot - these would include well-known organizations such as the Libertarian, Constitution, Socialist Workers, and Green non-party political organizations (commonly - but not legally in Iowa - acknowledged as parties) as well as less well-known organziations such as the 4th of July Party. These organizations are accorded the right to have voter registration options for their "party" if they meet certain circumstances. They can also nominate candidates by convention - this requires a specific number of eligible electors from a specific geographic distribution to be present at the convention, varying by the office sought. It may also nominate a candidate by petition, which requires a specific number of eligible electors to sign the petition. [7] --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Whether to list it here? I think we should clarify our headings in the list to separate out parties which are local or regional in scope from parties which are national in scope - this would allow inclusion of this party without placing it among more notable parties such as the Socialist Workers Party or the Reform Party. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I was interested not so much in Iowa election law as in whether the "4th of July Party" exists as an actual organization, with multiple members and some sort of structure, constitution, and platform. It's entirely possible that one guy is just using the phrase as a ballot label, and no organized 4th of July Party actually exists. I found no Google hits, of course, but since lots of people throw 4th of July parties, that's not conclusive. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there has to be an actual organization for the candidate to run under that party (based on above-cited law) but so far haven't found any website other than some information about the candidate. That's also not conclusive, however, as if it is limited to the district or that area it may exist and not have a website. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Big "Little Three" are M.I.A.

I looked at the article today, and the three largest minority parties - Constitution, Green, and Libertarian - were missing! I know they were there before, and I can't find the change on the page's history. Unless there was a REALLY good reason for removing this section, it should be returned to the article ASAP. DerekMBarnes (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed by an anonymous vandal in this edit. Fixed in this one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA

This page defines Micro Parties as "These parties have offered candidates in recent elections. Some do not have presidential candidates, and only field candidates for Congressional and/or state-level offices." I don't see how the Coffee Party USA fits into this definition. They define themselves as a movement and alternative to the TEA Party, which itself isn't even listed. Being only about a month old, I don't see how they fit the candidate part either, which their page also says nothing about. I think perhaps there is confusion between the word "Party" being in the name, and what constitutes an actual political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.19.245 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Other organizations

I've added a few political "organizations" (especially black radical groups) that closely resemble parties and/or participate in larger parties. --Sesel 16:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. Parties are organizations vying for state power, usually through electoral competition, (but occassionally through revolutionary action). I don't see how the organizations you've listed closely resemble parties, and if someo of them participate in larger parties, it strongly implies that they're not competing with them for power. RadicalSubversiv E 17:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I should clarify that I think the clear intent here is to list parties in the electoral sense. We can (and perhaps should) have List of revolutionary parties in the United States, List of black nationalist organizations, List of socialist organizations in the United States, etc. (and there might be some overlap in cases where those organizations have run candidates) RadicalSubversiv E 19:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that while these groups may well be (and probably are) appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, they aren't appropriate for this particular entry. Political parties run candidates. Jwolfe 10:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The United States has what is for all practical purposes a two-party system, with two large centrist political parties dividing a great majority of the vote between themselves in most elections.

Since when have the Republicans been a "centrist political party"? The political center of gravity in the US is clearly on the right, and it's well known that the US is an anomaly in the developed world in that there is no mainstream socialist or center-left party. For all I know rephrasing this sentence will provoke somebody's ire so I will leave it to someone else to make the change, but it's fairly clear to me that the Democrats are in the center, with some on its left espousing views that would be commonplace in the social democratic parties of most countries, but its presidential candidate (for example) being a liberal with plenty of right-wing views on economic matters. The Republicans of course are to the right of this. The idea that America has two centrist parties is misleading. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with what Trilobite is saying. The U.S. government has grown in real terms with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. This is the party of small government and fiscal restraint? I don't think so. At best, the parties are center-left and center-right. At worst, they are indistinguishable except at the fringes. Jwolfe 21:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you know more than me about US politics (I am an outside observer) but I do think the sentence needs rewording somehow. Any suggestions or do you think it should stay the same? — Trilobite (Talk) 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only way I can think to eliminate the potential POV is to eliminate the word centrist altogether:

The United States has what is for all practical purposes a two-party system, with the two largest political parties dividing a great majority of the vote between themselves in most elections.

I don't think this is an acceptable solution though, because I think we should touch on the generally accepted perception that the two major parties tend to gravitate toward the center so they can "steal" votes from each other. Just having the word centrist does it (although in a way that you don't see as NPOV), but if we move it somewhere else, we will probably need to explain it. I don't see anywhere to put it that doesn't interfere with the flow of the narrative. It is, after all, ancillary to the topic of listing the political parties.

I'll have to give it some more thought. I might be convinced that the narrative on two-party system covers the centrist notion sufficiently, although it is rather buried. Jwolfe 00:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the relevant notion here isn't whether the parties are centrist (relative to what, exactly?), but the fact that they're not so much ideological groupings as "big tent" coalitions. The language isn't coming to me right at the moment, though. RadicalSubversiv E 00:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those two concepts aren't really mutually exclusive. As the the parties grow through inclusiveness, they tend to grow toward the center because that's where the new recruits will be coming from. (And I would say that it's centrist relative to the population of voters.) Jwolfe 06:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Democratic and Republican Parties are not centrist. Each is a coalition of interest groups, with ideology playing only a minor role in binding the various interest groups together. Mcarling 14:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So how would you change the intro to reflect that? The more I think about it, the more I think we should go with the alternate text above and not try to characterize the major parties at all in this article. Jwolfe 14:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclinced to agree with you. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Former location of "Ballot Status 2008" secn

It's now within the section #Article section on most significant parties.--Jerzy•t 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation

So, let's we put up some documentation that all these parties listed under "other minor parties" have actually run candidates for some office. Some of them strike me as pretty fishy. If it seems like too much clutter for the main page, we can list sources on talk. - Nat Krause 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In some states it's pretty easy to get on a ballot, and it doesn't have to be a high office, it can be state assembly, so let's not assume they don't nominate candidates just because you haven't heard about it. Korky Day 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of these points are essentially correct. What is not said is that each party deserves either a ref to a source giving a candidate, office, and date of election, or a {{fact}}/{{cn}} tag. This is more important than usual bcz parties is perhaps the area (other than assassinations!) where the ability to shake the world rubs shoulders so visibly with hopelessly clueless crackpots: the incentive to add non-notable parties is greater, and the harm of the resulting clutter is greater.

The result will probably be that some editors do the research for parties they're concerned about, and others do it for neglected ones they expect to pass muster, and the rest get moved to an alpha "holding pen" section on this page, where they can either get attention or languish indefinitely. (I am arguing that the holding pen should be a permanent section, even if we start archiving old sections.) Probably additions to the initial subsection should be frozen, and additional alpha subsections maintained for "parties" suggested later without citations. Hmm, does someone know how to set up a table that the user can view in either alpha order or age order ? I think that's now a feature, mentioned implicitly at WP:MOSLIST.
--Jerzy•t 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

However, talk pages are for editors. Readers need the verification if we are to fulfill our purpose. If someone thinks a ref per line in a list looks too busy, they can ask for a template that renders refs less obtrusive in specified special situations.
--Jerzy•t 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphic at the bottom of the page

On the graphic at the bottom of the page I think that the Reform party should be removed because it is nearly dead, most of its supporters having jumped to the Constitution Party. Also the Socialist Party USA should be removed and replaced with teh Social Democrats USA which is larger and is also affiliated with Socialist International. -- 216.227.93.81 23:20, 15 November 2005

That graphic is the USParty template. Please address your criticisms there. — DLJessup (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Is there any standard for notability on these very small parties? I notice that some (e.g. the Expansionist Party) seem to be nothing more than websites.--Pharos 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Usually they would have to nominate candidates, even if as write-ins, etc. Do their Web pages mention nominating? Korky Day 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the article's premise statement

Is it true that "legally the United States has a multi-party system"? The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of parties at all; Washington hoped that they would not form. At least here in Tennessee, there is essentially a legal two-party system; ballot access laws are written in a way that any party other than the Big Two basically has to get its candidates on the ballot as independents (which admittedly in Tennessee is very easy compared to many states). Likewise the laws defining recognized statewide political parties require things like an executive committee consisting of one man and one woman from each of 33 senatorial districts, and a 5% floor in statewide elections for ballot access under a party line; for all intents and purposes this is almost impossible for a third party to achieve and thusly, even though Tennessee has very active Libertarian and Green Party members, the state doesn't recognize them as parties. I think that this is fairly widespread throughout the country. Doesn't sound like that we're legally a multi-party country to me, unless that just means that you probably won't get arrested for trying to form a party outside the two traditional ones. Rlquall 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried to clarify the constitutional status of political parties in the article. It would be unfair to say that Tennessee has a "legal two-party system"– I'm assuming that "Republican Party" and "Democratic Party" do not appear in the state constitution with guaranteed ballot status. This is a de facto two-party system, like in most other states.--Pharos 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I share your dismay. I partly fixed it recently. More later. Korky Day 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an opinion?

"due to arrogance on the part of most smaller political parties, they have not seen the wisdom in uniting under a new political umbrella."

Are Wikipedia articles really supposed to take positions and voice opinions like this?

24.131.239.27 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. See WP:NPOV. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Parties and state party affiliates

I'm removing the state affiliates of national/regional Political parties (e.g. The Nebraska Party, an affiliate of the Constitution Party; Reform Party of Michigan, an affiliate of the Reform Party). This will ensure that the article is reflecting actual political parties, not affiliated "parts" of political parties. --Tim4christ17 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also the question of locally important state parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party and the Independence Party of New York being lumped in with nationally constituted, but electorally marginal parties like the Socialist Equality Party. Perhaps there should be another division into "regional" parties and "educational" parties. "Regional" would include the active/officeholding state parties. "Educational" would include the ideological parties that contest elections, but for an explicitly educational purpose, like Socialist Workers Party (US), Workers World Party, etc. DJ Silverfish 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that's more-or-less how it's done in the categories. There are 'affiliates' then there are 'regionals'. — ChristTrekker 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently tried cleaning this up in the categories but hadn't thought to look at the lists. — ChristTrekker 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I separated the regional parties the other day. Korky Day 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal registration of parties.

This page states that: "there's 212 federally registered separate and distinct parties", maybe there should be a list of "federally registered" political parties in the United States here. That would seem to be more encyclopedic in all. Nagelfar 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that information is inaccurate. As far as I know, parties are only registered as parties on a state-by-state basis.--Pharos 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While I am unsure whether parties are/can be recognized at the federal level (other than the recognition given by the legislature to its members' parties), I would note that even the definition of "political party" varies significantly from state to state. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

Deliberate adoption of the recent and dubious classification by the five Party Systems involves acceptance of the extremely doubtful claim that there was a change of party in 1896; this is most undesirable, and POV. Please discuss Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a debate that should go on at the five Party System articles -- First Party System, Second Party System, Third Party System, Fourth Party System, and Fifth Party System. As long as those articles are around, I can't see using them in an article -- especially an article about political parties, where they are directly relevant -- as POV.

It may also be worth noting that your primary objection -- a period break around 1896 -- is also included in the classification you introduced (here). Moreover, that classification left a blank 12-year gap between 1884 and 1896 (and 24 years between 1800 and 1824).

As is well known, the Democratic Republicans expanded between 1812 and 1824 to include almost the entirety of national politics. No new parties were introduced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Drawing fixed and rigid boundaries between various "ages" and "eras" is of course a hopeless task, but the party system schema seems to me a perfectly acceptable and NPOV way of arranging the chronology. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• They are one classification; we should have articles on them; but we should not assert them in Wikipedia's voice outside those articles.
• Was there a change sometime around 1890? Probably. Was that change effectively a change of party as the five Party System thesis asserts? Probably not; the party that nominated Wilson was institutionally and politically continuous with the party of Grover Cleveland; as the party of Benjamin Harrison and Taft are the same.
• Conversely, was the beginning of the Gilded Age a change in politics? Of course it was; and we should admit it. The present classification suggests that the Constitutional Unionists and the Greenbackers were from the same era and reacting to the same issues, which is nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust the purely chronological list now present will be acceptable. I observe in making it that the fivefold division also split the Anti-Nebraska Party from the Opposition Party (United States), although they were contemporaries and allies. (Some would argue that they were the same thing; both were Anti-Nebraska men opposed to the Administration.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image From Article

I have removed the from List of political parties in the United States because it was not showing up and when I clicked on the link the image's page showed up with a large warning at the top that stating "Warning: This file type may contain malicious code; by executing it, your system may be compromised." If anyone has any concerns please post them here first and please do not make any reverts or revisions without discussing it first. Thank you. Simon Bar Sinister 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the image to an earlier version; see if it works for you now. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Both versions of the image have apparently been removed, which is appropriate: the poor penetration of parties is encyclopedic, but not part of this article.

In any case, i suppressed display of the image on this page, leaving it as just a link. An image that is troublesome for some users does not belong displayed here on talk either, since it may interfere with participation in the discussions.
--Jerzy•t 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate characterization

"No laws limit the number of political parties that may operate, so it is theoretically a multi-party system." While it's true that political freedom and freedom of expression and association guarantee that folks can start as many political parties as they wish; has anyone read the Constitution lately. Maybe it's true that in some "theoretical" sense - we have a multi-party system; but the Constitution formally defines a non-partisan system. When we vote in general elections, we are voting for the individuals who are running for office, not their parties. "First past the post" is a British term that's used in relation to the way their parliamentary form works. In the US, it's "winner takes all." See also: "American Poltiical Primer for Europeans" re: terms "conservative" and more http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/03/american-political-primer-for-europeans/ Rogerfgay 10:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical Parties

Given the largest/active/national/regional party breakdown for the extant parties, can we break down the historic parties too? I found this page looking for political party history prior to the Democrats and Republicans, and am lost about which parties were influential, and which ones were minor players. It would be nice if the historic parties could also be broken down by "influence", like the contemporary parties. - For a NPOV method of separation, I might recommend "parties with an elected president"/"parties with at least two senators or congressmen"/"parties without a national representative", or some sort of variation on the above. -- 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.120 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007

Article section on most significant parties

Standard for 3rd Party

I don't think the standard of one candidate having received 100,000 votes within the last 20 years is a good indicator of a current 3rd party. Current in US politics is 4 years. Also, a party organized for the benefit of a single candidate running in a single large state could easily qualify. I suggest that the standard should be having at least one candidate on the ballot in at least 40 states in either of the last two general elections i.e. in the last 4 years. I believe that would result in the same list we have now of Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform. Mcarling 00:35 Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

That was a great suggestion, and it was improved whenever the == Current largest parties == section was converted to a standard based on total possible electoral vote for their candidate. Here are comments on the changes i've just completed:

1. Section title: not about size of party, so i renamed as "== Latest parties in presidential contention ==". That's better, but not perfect since "contention" suggests more chance of success than even Perot achieved, and all of these are far from Perot's level. But IMO the ideal title is not a perfect one, but a pretty good one that is about that short. Others may have ideas that are more precise without being significantly longer.
2. I ditched "a chance of winning", since "a snowball's chance in Hell" is not "a chance". I changed to

   a degree of national attention by attaining the mathematical possibility of its nominee becoming

   which is much better, but probably not as good as someone else can come up with.

3. I settled on "mathematical" rather than "legal" chance because of the bizarre aspects the process.

   I confess to "slicing the distinctions pretty thin" here. The choice between "legal" and "mathematical" is really more on of shifting the focus away from issues of (statute and constitutional) law:

   • They provide for bizarre scenarios like the EC deadlocking (probably 269 to 269, but i think 269 to 268 to 1 would have the same effect) and "throwing it into the House" (has happened only oncetwice, and not in over 100 years -- 1880 sticks in my mind 1800 & 1824) where 51 votes (one per state! - but what happens when a state delegation is deadlocked?), or maybe it's a plurality of states, decide, and where (IIRC) anyone who got even 1 electoral vote is eligible.
   • In the Electoral College, candidates for Elector are pledged to vote for a specific Prez candidate, but AFAIK subject to no legal penalty (let alone compulsion) against "defecting". (There was in fact a single defection sometime in the last 50 years.)

   "Mathematical", on the other hand, shifts attention to where in practice it always remains (unless the Supremes intervene). I think this term (surprisingly imprecise, but useful in that!) best captures what we are presumably after here, namely the most objectively justifiable way of deciding how to drawing a line between (well, let me give into my own PoV; i welcome other ways of stating a useful distinction) "major third parties" and "utterly insignificant parties".

--Jerzy•t 19:57 & 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballot Status 2008

I find it hard to believe that any party is qualified yet in enough states to have a theoretical chance to win in 2008. I know the Libertarians are qualified currently in 26 states (Ballot Access News web site, November 4, 2004), but I don't know that it follows (a) that it corresponds to a majority of electoral votes and (b) that they don't need to meet vote thresholds in the meantime to retain that status. In many, if not most, states (including mine), the parties have to meet a threshold in the off-year elections to maintain ballot status. Not even the Democrats and Republicans are qualified yet for 2008 in those cases. The threshold may be trivial to meet, but it's still there. Can somebody document that these parties have all qualified already for 2008? Jwolfe 08:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Libertarians are currently ballot qualified in 26 states for statewide office. They are qualified for President in several more because in many states the requirements are lower for President than for statewide office. Also, the 26 states where the Libertarians are ballot qualified include most of the those that are rich in electoral votes: CA, TX, FL (but not NY). Also, in many states Libertarians retain their ballot status due to the the number of registered Libertarian voters. In many other states, the requirement is to poll in excess of some threshold in either of the two preceding general elections. I'm sure this answer won't satisfy some of the most rabid anti-Libertarians here, so I'll try to find time to compile a list of the states in which the Libertarians are already ballot qualified for 2008. M Carling 18:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The criticism of JWolfe is valid in saying the criteria should not be future qualification only. The article now is based on ballot status in 2004, not 2008. Korky Day 10:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pt. a is of course crucial. As to Pt. b, it seems to me that the distinction between being "already qualified" (say, needing only to meet filing deadlines -- which presumably technically include naming the candidate, even for D & R; and BTW are you still qualified if all your delegates and their alternates are assassinated?) and being "on track for qualification" on a basis which some others mathematically will be unable to match is significant but not dispositive. I haven't yet studied out what is currently in effect, nor whether this affects the party in question, but i'd rather see such a party within one list and distinguished from each other by italics or a star. I see no problem with moving a party that was "on track", when they go off-track.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Choice of Columns

Tho i've futzed with only one of them significantly, the last 3 columns of the table are worthy of controversy:

1. "Founder(s)": I like this column, but my reason for liking it is PoV: it shows Dem P as the creature of two giants of American political thought, and R P as founded by a malcontent with a Start-grade WP bio, a G-test of

   170 of 170 for "Alvan E. Bovay" OR "Alvan Bovay"

   and a finest quote of

   "The mission of the Republican party had ended with the overthrow of slavery and the reconstruction of the old slave states on a free basis... Its place should be taken by a new party with prohibition as its central idea."

   I await a NPoV reason for this column.

2. "Associated Ideologies": The applicability of the material appearing in this column is unverifiable and PoV. It's usefulness might be significant the table had 20 rows, but i'm trashing it (in a separate edit, so it will be undo-able.)
3. "Current Party Chair": Not very interesting or useful, and arguably PoV in effect, since the Green Party apparently has decided that the whole concept is flawed. If you're interested enuf to care, you're interested enuf to follow the lk to the party's article to find out.

--Jerzy•t 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and futzed further, adding 2 columns (and reordering the table based on the one just right of the the party names, or the one to the right of that in case of ties.
--Jerzy•t 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead secn

I have removed 3 paragraphs, for the reasons stated:

• There are not 4 but 5 categories (but i dasn't say that w/o noting that "Other current parties that have not nominated candidates in recent elections" has a description unlikely to specify the same parties consistent with that secn title; who knows whether the contents correspond to either!).

  The political parties are in four categories below, "Current largest parties", "Other current national parties that have endorsed candidates", "Current regional parties that have endorsed candidates" and "Political parties in U.S. history".

• This is a list of actual or potential party articles; discussion of other approaches does not belong in the article, nor do lks to other lists belong in the lead, nor do lks to external lists belong in the article except as used to verify article content.

  An alternate means for categorizing U.S. political parties, historically and currently, is to apply the Federal Election Commission's definition of "national committees" retroactively in time to the beginning of the U.S. To see such a list, see Richard Winger's article in the Election Law Journal, April 2006 (Vol. 5 no. 2), which can be read on-line. Within that article, the list of parties is in Appendix A.

• Accurate in some sections, not in others. Sections should be separately labeled.

  Year is when founded. Order of current parties is alphabetical.

The new rest of the secn should, instead, at least say what's on the sum of the 5 lists (in effect, what is excluded from them all, which seems nowhere stated). At most, it would probably be good to name, and at least briefly specify content of, the 5 sublists.
--Jerzy•t 08:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

History, since 2007 November, of hd'gs & descr'ns of the handful of sublists

There have been lately a number of edits affecting how we subdivide the listed parties into more manageable lists. At a glance the results are at best confusing, and they raise a question as to whether substantive changes have been made without moving entries accordingly.

• The edit of 2007 November 10 14:23, by Chronicler3, with summary

Separating out active third parties from long list

had the effect of splitting the old 2nd sublist of 4 into the 2nd and 3rd of 5, leaving the old hdg of the 2nd on the new 3rd. (Keeping old title was technically reasonable since it began with "Other", making it implicitly relative to sublist(s) preceding it.)

Showing via formatting the changes between the retained- & new-hdg wordings:

Other current active national parties (that have endorsed candidates)

(Thus the meaning of the unchanged wording "Other current..." in what is now the new 3rd hdg was narrowed from "lesser current..." to "lesser current, but not active, ...".)

• The two edits of 2007 November 29 06:56, by Cmrdm, with summary

clarified titles, added links

and

of 2007 November 29 13:17], by Ground Zero, with summary

"have ran" is a grammatical error. "have run" is better, and "nominated" is even better

retitled both of the 2nd and 3rd sublists of 5.

Showing the changes between the old & new wordings of both hdg's:

Other active national parties (that have endorsed nominated candidates) in recent elections

and

Other current national parties (that have not endorsed nominated candidates) in recent elections

(Thus

1. the meaning of "active" is replaced with explicit wording,
2. the specification "national" is dropped, and
3. the specification "current" is retained, in only the 3rd of 5, redundant to now implying "active" in both headings.)

• (More to follow, after more research and formation of conclusions. In particular, Cmrdm seems to have moved some parties in and/or out of these sublists, or between them; i'll try to discern why.)

--Jerzy•t 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that the list is confusing. I was trying to arrange the list so that it shows readers which parties are actually placing candidates on the ballot in elections, and which parties are currently not doing this. Many of the parties listed, for various reasons, are not currently running any candidates for office. This is because they are either too small to do this, or they are endorsing other parties' candidates or perhaps they are boycotting the elections altogether. Anyway, I think listing it that way would be the most helpful for voters.

Then there is also the difference between "regional" and "national" parties. Of course, all of the "national" parties in the "Other" category are never on the ballot in all 50 states. However, we should distinguish between the parties that intend to remain "regional" (e.g. separatist parties) and those that desire to become nationwide parties (hence "national").

BTW, the website http://www.ballot-access.org/ is helpful resource. Cmrdm (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Prez Contenders secn

(Latest parties in presidential contention is the section in the accompanying article referred to in this secn, as of 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC).)

I reverted the otherwise undiscussed two-day-old edit summarized as

listed total popular votes - this is more informative for the smaller parties

bcz

1. i had already fully considered making the information provided appropriately informative to the context, when i created the new table column and its contents,
2. the summary makes no hint at anywhere i went wrong,
3. the additional information

   - is available elsewhere, where those wanting it would logically seek it, and

   - distracts, confuses, and delays readers when provided there,

4. the specification "for the smaller parties" has no apparent meaning in the context of the passage or the summary, and
5. the edit's primary effect would be to increase the effort required, by an interested reader, to discern how wide the notability divide between the major and minor parties is

The article is not abt the outcome of elections, and i should think that it would be obvious that the only reason for mentioning two election-outcome numbers each for these 5 parties was to demonstrate the gulf as to notability between the two major parties and these pathetically minor parties, without simply putting the same "0" information for all three minors.
(Yes, it is reasonable to expect that at some time a minor party will be able to come as close to controlling a federal branch as each of the major parties does three times/ways in every four years -- and that is somewhat notable. But NPoV requires acknowledgment that of how enormously limited that notability is -- in light of the history of third parties since the last time the nation made the attempt to settle its politics by killing of about half a percent of its population per year in 1861-'65: even a party created to advance the candidacy of an ex-Prez (1912) or to assert a sectional interest (1948, 1960, 1968) as been at most a sidelight to major-party politics. My own focus may warp a bit my view (I'd be pleased to hear about it if so.), which is of successful third parties (A Connecticut Party, Connecticut for Lieberman party) being vehicles for mavericks who've previously earned office in major parties.
(But i'm rattling on: the notability of modern third parties is slight in view of the poor performance of their kind, and it would be enormously PoV to mention them in the section we are discussing, without providing the (reasonably typical) reader who is interested at most in a handy means to answer the question "in which ballpark of electoral irrelevance was this particular 3rd party in this election?" If that is not the approach of the section, then our lives will be slightly complicated by the need to debate how many electoral votes are required to be mentioned in the section, until someone comes up with another way we can avoid implicitly misinforming our readers that the major parties are comparable in notability to the pathetically irrelevant third parties.)
I find "this is more informative for the smaller parties" -- presumably the summary's explanation -- at best silly or nonsense. Is this a quibble about the majors' two significant figures happening to amount to ±0.8% imprecision, while the minors' two sigfigs amount to ±0.4% or ±0.6%? Is it a claim that high precision is more important for the smaller parties -- a form of stubborn denial that the results demonstrate a winner, a close second, and 3 insignificantly different losers?
The only legitimate function of these numbers, in this section, is what i've described. Adding more digits would serve no legitimate purpose, and would have no significant effect except to promote (by reducing immediate clarity) misperceptions about what brings the table within NPoV: i.e., to suggest the notability of the minor parties is comparable to that of the majors.
--Jerzy•t 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, adding the additional figures shows the exact difference of support between the smaller parties. This makes it easier to tell the exact amount more of votes that, for example, the Libertarian party received than the Green's candidate did in the last election. I do not see how it could possibly constitute a 'point of view', because readers can still easily see that the Democrats and Republicans both got over 50 million more votes than any of the smaller parties did. Cmrdm (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this clearly focused response to my rather diffuse msg. Does it help us at all in advancing if we both re-read WP:SYN at this point, not seeking a direct answer to the question "how precise should our coverage of returns in the accompanying article be?", but rather taking it as a discussion in WP (the only one that comes to mind for me at the moment) that specifically focuses on what strikes me (at this moment -- hedge, hedge) as "PoV expressed solely by implication". I'm not sure i've read it either a second time or carefully, so i expect from what i remember that a careful reading of it is likely to be enlightening (at least for me) in this context. It may also trigger for one of us a thought as to what might be more directly relevant for us to consult.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BPP

Is there a specific reason that the Black Panther Party is not included on this list? I was trying to find if it was defunct or not (registering to vote) and its own article seems vandalized. 68.164.201.146 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Black Panther Party did not put forth candidates for election. When its members ran for office they did so under the auspices of other parties -- e.g. Eldridge Cleaver with the Peace and Freedom Party in 1968. The Panthers were more of a radical movement or community organization and less of a political party in the conventional sense. --FOo (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional Union Party

There was also an Unconditional Union Party that sprang up around the same time as the National Union Party. They may have been affiliated, or the same thing, I don't know. If anyone can find out more info, specifically what years it existed, it should be added to this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Links

There are some parties with no articles under their name but they still have links. How do you fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.182 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody either writes articles for them or argues that they're not notable enough to be included in this list, as the case may be. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User's Centrist editing message

Hello and a very good evening to all Wikipedians. Here I am asking if there are any American Wikipedians here or out there that are either members of these three parties called the American 3rd Party, America's We The People and the American Centrist Party or people who have just heard of them from somewhere to give me newspaper articles or third party sources if they have them. Those articles that would discuss any of these American centrist parties. The reason for that is so I can use them to support my articles notability and existance.Political Dweeb talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC).

• Howdy-do, according to a ridiculous test I took online, I'm technically a Centrist, well "below" and "to the left" of Libertarian. Therefore I have opted to call myself a Centrist Libertarian--I think there are lots of us out there. I'm hoping this URL will help you in the quest: http://www.uscentrist.org/ for the Centrist Party page. BY the way, I see no evidence of minor third teeny-weent parties that use the name "Centrist".75.21.115.123 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Standards for Political Party

I note above that a [strict guideline] is suggested for the "notability" of minor political parties. However this list itself doesn't follow it, and additionally, the [Modern Whig Party] even has its own page. Disclosure: I am the National Party Secretary of the American Conservative Party (founded 2008) and I am seeking to have a page added for our party. Currently, there is only one independent verifiable media link I can point to. The rest are either blogs, sites created by us, or a candidate . Reference "Links" above.

Edit note: I have added American Conservative Party to the list of parties that have not nominated candidates in prior election cycles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonsplat (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be an encylopedia — ENCYCLOPEDIC in its inclusion of useful information. There are too many people who derive meaning for their lives by drawing this line or that for "notability." What is deemed notable and important to one person often has no bearing on what is notable and important to another, however. WP needs to get over its hangup that things must, for some unknown and unexplained reason, be "kept short." There is no lack of computer storage space and if someone deems an article on this political party or that important enough to spend time writing on it, that should be sufficient. We don't need time-consuming, pointless, and divisive discussions on what is or is not "notable" — if the information is ACCURATE and is presented from a Neutral Point of View, that should be sufficient.

So there are "political party notability rules"?!? IGNORE THE RULES. There is no reason for them in this case. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Better organization?

I don't have the time to do it, and maybe someone else does, but perhaps this list could be better laid out to include: Associated color (official or 'media-assigned'), and political spectrum position (e.g. Socialist, Liberal, Democratic, Centrist, Republican, Conservative, Libertarian). I think it would make the list much easier to read and easier to locate what parties are what (their names are not always indicative of spectrum position). GusterBear (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperial / Imperialist party

I removed "Imperial" and "Imperialist" party from the article as I can find no reference to its existence in the U.S. It certainly has not had any influence on the presidental elections, even though it was listed in that section. The "party"'s website (http://www.imperialistparty.com/about/about.html) even states that it is "not a qualified or recognized political party". If it ever becomes one, then it can be added to this article. --CPAScott (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the edits by Carrite

I undid most of the edits by Carrite. It doesn't make sense to put historical political parties before functioning ones. Also, the Socialist Labor Party of America is still functioning, and the Christian Freedom Party is not. I left the other changes there. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Centrist Party

http://www.uscentrist.org/

Relatively new and founded by John P. Reisman

Just adding this t your list for evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.122.85 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this as well --108.3.157.32 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

political parties in the USA

The USAA (insurance for military service women/men both active and retired) survey that I took today listed some political parties that were not on the Wikipedia list.

They are in the order in which they were listed on the survey: Citizens, Constitutional, Democrat Farm Labor, Liberal, Natural Law, Right to Life, Socialist, Taxpayers, & Tea Party (not listed as BOSTON Tea Party).

Crawfishgal (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Major and minor parties

I suppose it makes some sense to separate out the Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution Party as more significant than the hordes of other small parties due to their relative longevity and greater ballot access. But this shouldn't be done at the expense of throwing them in with the Democrats and Republicans, who are obviously in an entirely different category. Don't the hundred thousand or so votes Cobb and Peroutka got in the 2008 election make them rather more like the 30,000 votes Leonard Peltier got for the Peace and Freedom Party than like the millions of votes, and thousands of elected officials nationwide, represented by the Democrats and Republicans? There are two currently existing "major parties" in the United States - the Democrats and the Republicans. The rest are all "minor parties" or "third parties". It seems like a good idea to separate out the most important of those minor parties, but it makes very little sense to me to lump those in with the actually major parties. john k (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)