Talk:Political parties in the United States

No membership and other peculiarities

US parties deviate quite a lot from how parties are organized in (most of) the rest of the world and this is absent from the article. It should mention that the parties lack mass membership and are not associations and try to explain how parties function in the US. Who leads them and how do they decide procedures, choose candidates etc.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I was looking who are the chairs/presidents/general secretaries of the parties, how do they get elected etc., but found nothing. Also how the parties' politics are decided is totally absent from that article.

Worth noting would be also that due to the US' majority voting system only two parties effectively have powers, and no coalitions are formed.--Stefanhanoi (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted section about performance under various presidents

I deleted the section about economic growth in recent history and its correlation to the party of the president. This article is not an appropriate venue for that information any more than it is an appropriate venue for which party "has got us into more wars" or "put more land under federal control" or "is more awesome". Perhaps Economic history of the United States would be a better place for it. --Me, but logged in (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Politics comparison major issues

I would strongly suggest adding additional information to the chart because in it's current form it's misleading and seems to imply that there is no difference between the Constitution Party and the Republican Party and very little difference between the Green Party and the Democratic Party. My suggestions for additional issues to include are: stance on the Patriot Act, support for ballot access for third parties, position on foreign intervention, position on foreign aid, position on a separate Palestinian state, position on auditing the Federal Reserve, position on corporate personhood, position on carbon emission markets/carbon trading, position for union rights, position on NAFTA, etc. 76.173.160.124 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Locke9k, you've done a phenomenal job cleaning this page up, for sure. I agree that the comparison table has immense potential, the unfortunate part being that it's difficult to assert specific positioning coming from any of the parties. On the column for the democrats, "Strengthening Immigration Laws" probably shouldn't be listed as "No," as democrats.org calls for "comprehensive immigration reform-" I'd say it's hard to call that a "no." If anything, it seems like a strong "yes." Let me know if you disagree- in the mean time, I'm switching it over to "yes," even though that feels like a pretty big swing. (see [[1]]) Johnwpalmer (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This table has major issues at present. Many of these have been highlighted by long-standing templates. I will summarize the issues that come to my mind at present.

• POV: In its present form, the table is inherently unverifiable. The table must present one of two things; not a mix. It must either present the self-represented positions of each party, or it must present some objective measure of the actions / positions of each party. The latter would clearly be too contentious to be adequately represented in tabular form, so the first is really the only option. Presently it is unclear which is being represented, and the table needs to be uniformly converted to the first and represented as such
• Inherent Unverifiability: Right now certain aspects of the table are inherently unverifiable. For instance, the assertion that one party 'strongly supports' something while another party only 'supports' it, is clearly opinion. Unless this table is to be based upon a specific study with a well established metric separating these categories, there is no way to base them on objective verifiable fact. Thus I have presently removed all such descriptors. Similarly, what does 'generally oppose' mean? Its incredibly vague and hints of weasel wording. This leads into the next issue
• Oversimplification / POV Considering the above argument that this table must represent the self-described views of each party, several of these categories are very problematic from an oversimplification standpoint. In a nutshell, almost the only reasonable source for self-described party views is the party platform, and after looking at the relevant section in some of these they often give their position in a way that is not really amenable to a simple support / oppose spectrum. In order to give a neutral, accurate view of these issue, the boxes need to be larger and offer a slightly more detailed view of the party's position.
• Referencing: Many of the claims in this table are contentious, and it is very problematic that they have gone unreferenced for so long. It may be necessary to simply blank some of the cells where they are making even marginally contentious unsourced claims, until such time as a sourced position can be found and added.

I'm going to try to work on these problems over time, but it is a big project and any help would be appreciated. We really need to get this fixed up. It has potential but right now it is a major black mark on this article. Locke9k (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll make one extra note about this table. It cannot be expected to be a descriptor of the views of party members. By the above argument, the only verifiable info that can reasonably fit in table form is the professed position of the party itself. This means that if, for example, the Democratic party opposes drug legalization as a platform issue, but some of its members support it, the table should state that the party opposes drug legalization. This means that in most cases the descriptors "more in favor" or "mixed support" don't really belong. I may blank them until such time as an accurate descriptor can be obtained from sources. Locke9k (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Presently the section of the table on the political spectrum is almost entirely unsourced, and I can't even think of a way to source it unless there is a single authoritative, neutral source that has comprehensively covered these categories in a consistent way. The category is also inherently highly contentious. For now I have thus removed it but am placing it here for future use. I think it is a potentially interesting section, so if someone can comprehensively, verifiably, and reliably source it, please feel free to add it back into the table. Locke9k (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of politics of current United States parties in presidential contention

Issue		Green Party	Democratic Party	Libertarian Party	Republican Party	Constitution Party
Political spectrum	Left-Right	Center-left	Center-left	(Rejects left-right political spectrum)	Center-right	Right-wing
	Communitarianism vs. Individualism Economic Issues	Communitarian	Mixed	Individualist	Mixed	Individualist
	Communitarianism vs. Individualism Cultural Issues	Individualist	Individualist	Individualist	Mixed	Communitarian
	Pacifism vs. Militarianism	Pacifism	Mixed	Non-interventionist	Mixed	Non-interventionist
	Free trade vs. Fair trade	Fair trade	Mixed	Free trade (Unilateral)	"Free and fair trade" (Multilateral)	Semi-protectionist
	Progressivism vs. Conservatism	Progressivism	Progressivism	Libertarianism	Conservatism	Conservatism

References

All right, given the total rework I have done of this section it seems to me that some of the tags are no longer necessary. First, I believe that I have largely eliminated the POV issues, and since there seems to be no active discussion of them here I am removing that tag. Feel free to read it if you still feel there are problems. Same deal with the factual accuracy issue. Also, all of the issues positions are now well cited so there is no reference problem there. The only potential issue could be the ideology section, but I think that with how I have whittled them down they are not very contentious, are largely supported in the content of the link to that ideology, and may thus not need to be directly referenced within the table. I am therefore removing that template along with the OR one, for now. Again, feel free to re-add if you feel it is appropriate, but please discuss it here as well so we can consider what would need to be done to remove the tags. Locke9k (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me please reiterate above points in response to the recent edits by 24.60.210.171. First, let me say that your contributions are very much appreciated. However, for a number of reasons discussed above, the particular edits you have made at this time are problematic and I thus reverted them. Let me review the points above that bear on your edits. First, this chart represents the standpoint of the party; it does not attempt to summarize the standpoints of the diverse party membership. The latter would be almost impossibly to summarize briefly in a verifiable way, while the for the first it is easy to do so. This means that descriptors like "mixed" aren't appropriate, unless the party platform itself presents a mixed view. Also, since the platform and other statements on the party website are available for each party, there is no reason for any material in this table not to be well sourced. Particularly since this is a contentious subject, excellent sourcing is very important (and easy). The descriptions should thus reflect the self-described position of each party in its platform or other issue announcements. Second, as there is no verifiable way presented in this article (or that I can think of) of objectively distinguishing between descriptors like "strongly favor" and "favor", it is best to avoid the descriptor "strongly". We need to just objectively describe the position in a way that is indisputable. Thanks againLocke9k (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To IP User 24.60.210.171

As I have mentioned above, there are thought-out reasons for why I have removed descriptors like 'strong' and 'mixed' from this table, and for why the table should represent the official position of the party (not the potentially diverse positions of its membership), preferably as indicated in each party's platform. Obviously these positions are up for debate, but if you disagree, please come to this page and discuss the issue rather than merely reinstituting your edits without discussion on a daily basis. Its not productive and it won't lead to consensus. If you have a well thought out disagreement with the present setup, represent it here; you may convince me and a new consensus may form. Thanks. Locke9k (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I am conducting a major overhaul of this page. In a nutshell, the page was far too narrow. It was essentially a battleground for modern political parties, poorly sourced and POV. The page should give a more complete and balanced view of political parties in the US. To that end, I have added a history section to the page. It is still in the preliminary phase and could use considerable fleshing out. As per the above section, I am reworking the comparison table so that it is accurate and verifiable. I have also updated out of date content and have removed some material that didn't seem to meaningfully contribute to the page. There is still a lot of work to be done. The party sections need to be better balanced so as to avoid giving undue weight to minor parties. Probably more should be included in the republican and democratic sections to help with this. The history section needs fleshing out. The top part of the comparison table needs major work; right now it is largely unverified and perhaps unverifiable; it may constitute OR. Also the article overall still needs much more fleshing out. We need to think of this as an article on the history, development, and role of political parties in the United States rather than just as a comparison page for a few parties. Locke9k (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion cleanup

I have archived old discussions. There were getting to be quite a lot and many of them were no longer immediately relevant given the recent major changes in the page. Locke9k (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Abortion is a divisive issue among the Libertarian Party. Our official party stance is unrefletive of reality. The current platform states to allow the individual and to keep Governmetn out of it. However, read into the State Party Platforms and past platforms. Such as the last platform that clearly states matters of Morality should be left up to the State and Local Governments.

So, it ought to be a ? instead of a no. As a lot, and I mean a lot of Libertarian Candidates do not care for abortions.Jon3800 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Democrats on the left????

...before Woodrow Wilson??? No, the Democrats were on the right and the Republicans were formed on the left out of the anti-slavery former Democrats and the former Whigs (Liberals). The Republicans were formed basically as an anti-slavery party. While during and after reconstruction, the Dem's were the pro-whites party. Also the government of the Confederate States was a Democratic government. I will quote from the Wikipedia article on the Democrats: "Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party. Along with the Whig Party, the Democratic Party was the chief party in the United States until the Civil War. The Whigs were a commercial party, and usually less popular, if better financed." also " In the 1850s, under the stress of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, anti-slavery Democrats left the party." so after the 1850's the democrats were basically all pro-slavery and then conservatives pro-Jim Crow till Woodrow Wilson. Also: . As the American Civil War broke out, Northern Democrats were divided into War Democrats and Peace Democrats and Southern Democrats formed their own [Democratic] party." and MOST importantly: "The Democrats benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction after the war and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. After Redeemers ended Reconstruction in the 1870s, and the extremely violent disenfranchisement of African Americans took place in the 1890s, the South, voting Democratic, became known as the "Solid South." Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1884, the Democrats remained competitive. The party was dominated by pro-business Bourbon Democrats led by Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland, who represented mercantile, banking, and railroad interests; opposed imperialism and overseas expansion; fought for the gold standard; opposed bimetallism; and crusaded against corruption, high taxes, and tariffs. Cleveland was elected to non-consecutive presidential terms in 1884 and 1892." The Bourbon Democrats were either conservative or classical liberals ("classical liberal" actually means right-libertarian or conservative libertarian in today's terms).

After W. Wilson the party's policies made a turn towards progressive. After Roosevelt its economic policies became left-sided. And it finally became a left-liberal party after the Civil Rights movement. The Republicans, noticing the "market opportunity" turned conservative with theri "Southern Strategy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Third parties"

I changed one word in the description of the Libertarian Party to "minor" party, because I don't think you should have multiple "third parties". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.251.128 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• It seems you don't understand the American political term "third party". A "third party" is a political party, other than the Republican or Democratic Party. It does not refer to some specific party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.61.183 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparison table

I think this one is problematic for several reasons. The table states that issues are "framed as changes to the status quo", suggesting that "no" means the party supports the status quo, and "yes" means they want to change the status quo. The problem with that is that, if each issue were viewed as a continuum of positions, the status quo is usually somewhere in the middle of the continuum. For example, with the issue of "legal same-sex marriage", the status quo is that some states allow same-sex marriage, some states allow civil unions, and most states prohibit same-sex marriage. So the Green and Libertarian Parties are "yes", because they would allow same-sex marriage everywhere. But the Republican and Constitution Party would also change the status quo, prohibiting same-sex marriage everywhere, so should they also be "yes"? On the other hand, "Civilian gun control" seems to be entirely backward; it states that the Libertarian, Republican, and Constitution Party do not want to change the status quo -- they support it -- but as I understand it, they favor fewer restrictions on civilian gun ownership. By contrast, the Green Party is marked as "yes", indicating that they would change the status quo, but they actually seem fairly supportive of it; the relevant platform plank states, "Thoughtful, carefully considered gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" and the waiting period for record search before gun dealers may sell a gun should be supported." That seems like general support for the status quo. cmadler (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

what about the independents?

I am wondering why the Indepent party was not profiled as either a major party or the largest minority party? Independent is its own party, with its own platform (not to be confused with non-affiliated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.171.23 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• That would be a good point, if it were true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.61.183 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Colors in Politics Comparison Table

"Yes" is colored blue and green. I haven't been able to find an explanation for the two different colors. Could someone please add one? (Or point me to where it is, if I'm blind?) -- megA (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks from the history as though all Yes entries started using a "free|Yes" template, which is blue, and the green cells appeared in a haphazard way each time an editor changed a No to a "Yes" template, which is green, rather than a "free|Yes". So I have now changed them all to blue. Grafen (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of Registered Democrats and Republicans

The article says the Democrats had 72 million registered voters and the Republicans had 55 million Republicans and cites a column by Al Neuharth, which was not even a news article. He might have been correct, but he didn't cite a source. In contrast, a 2008 AP story says "Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press." See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/politics/main4422449.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4422449 Is there a more definitive source for the number of registered Democrats and Republicans than the Al Neuharth column? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the comparison table?

Why is the Communist Party in there? I don't think it belongs in the same category as the other five. You could argue that Wikipedia should have all the parties, but then you'd have to add all the other small parties, not just the Communist party. Where are you gonna draw the line? Also, the Green Party is not based on "Marxist theory". In fact, social democracy sort of goes against Marxist theory. I also think it's too much of a generalization to describe the entire Republican Party as neoconservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.61.183 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Independents

Last month, I added a paragraph on independent voters. It was deleted last weekend by the IP. I put it back today, because I believe independent/swing voters to be important to the party apparatus. Everybody OK with that? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations for Political Party History?

I'm writing a big paper on the history of Political Parties in America, and some of the information in the last section on the brief history of political party eras would be exceedingly useful, but I'm not allowed to cite Wikipedia. However, there are no sources for me to go further look on for most of that section, so I can't use any of that information as evidence. If someone could please add some citations that would be great, in the meantime I'll just try searching for info on each era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.152.132 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you do find citations for the information in that last section, let us know, so we can add it to the article. (Or add it yourself WP:CITETOOL) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

POLITICAL PARTIES

ARE POLITICAL PARTIES CORPORATIONS?

DO THEY PAY TAXES? ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO A CANDIDATE TAXED? ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO A PARTY TAXED?

IF NOT, THEN WHAT KIND OF ENTITY ARE THEY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.85.60 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you suggest any specific changes to the Wikipedia article, I recommend that you ask at Wikipedia:reference desk. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Comparison Table

Some issues with the Democrat positions:

• The citation provided to support "Yes" under the column "Universal Government Health Care" - the 2012 DNC platform - does not reference anything about "universal government health care." The heading specifically says "government" not just "universal health care" and the difference between these two things has been a principal point-of-contention between the non-Democrat Left (e.g. Nader, the Green Party, etc.) and the Democrats. I ask consensus to change this to an unfilled box, similar to Capital Punishment.
• The phrase "Immigration Restrictions - No" suggests the Democrats support abolition of all immigration restrictions - i.e. Green Cards, border controls, etc. There's nothing in the cited source - the DNC 2012 platform - that suggests this is true. Since this is actually the position of the Libertarian Party, it creates confusion. Either this should be turned into an unfilled box or a yellow box with the words "Yes/No" or something similar.
• Under the Democrat column it says "Civilian Gun Control - Yes." Again, the source is the 2012 DNC platform which does not contain any such absolutist language and requires the creative interpretation of the editor to come to this conclusion. The platform calls for reenacting the assault weapons ban and closing gun show loopholes - these two items, by themselves, can't, in anyone's imagination, equal "Civilian Gun Control - Yes." The platform does not contain any language supporting handgun restrictions, semi-auto long gun restrictions, federal licensing/registration or any other more commonly equated firearm restriction.
Generally, this absolutist approach of "Yes/No" responses probably creates more confusion and erroneous misrepresentation than it accomplishes in convenient simplification. BlueSalix (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The "No" entry is incorrect for Libertarian party in the row for "Capital Punishment" and the reference to the party platform does not support either a "No" or a "Yes" entry for this issue (nor does it support a "No" for "Abortion restrictions" -- on which the party platform is explicitly non-absolutist!) Tripodics (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There should be some sort of "none of the above" entry choice available. I agree with the above comment that "this absolutist approach of 'Yes/No' responses probably creates more confusion and erroneous misrepresentation than it accomplishes in convenient simplification". Tripodics (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides from "yes" or "no", there is the alternative of having a blank box, which I would support if there is no clear answer given from official documents. I've added (in bold) to the introduction so that it now reads "...the tendencies of the official party positions on a number of reformist issues where positions diverge", since it's in reality about tendencies to lean towards "yes" or "no" than absolutist dichotomy. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Left-leaning Democratic Party?

A political party that supports voter suppression, drone bombings, teargas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters, indefinite detention, expansion of for-profit healthcare, and numerous other party "tendencies" is hardly a party that can be called -- with integrity -- any sort of "left-leaning" anything!!!

Who writes this stuff, honestly?

Midleftzone (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Find some credible sources that make that point, and make your case. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, on the traditional left–right scale, the Soviet Union would be considered even more "left-leaning" than the Democratic Party. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There has also been considerable amount of similar discussions on both Talk:Republican Party (United States) and Talk:Democratic Party (United States) as to whether to use the terms "left-leaning", "right-leaning", "left wing" and "right-wing" on these pages. The truth, as also stated in this article, is that the American concept of left-wing politics is different from the rest of the world. Thus it is best to keep these out. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not that the concept of left vs right is intellectually different in the US against the rest of the world. It's the same idea, but the political landscape in the US is generally more shifted to the right than in the rest of the world. So what passes for a left wing party in America is actually a center or center-right party in other countries. 216.162.76.18 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Constitution party fiction

Constitution party numbers are complete fiction: They used to have a huge irregularity in California; almost their entire national party membership was from California, where they were not called Constitution party, but rather the American Independent Party. Voters wishing to remain 'independent' frequently make the mistake of selecting American Independent Party, rather than "no party preference." There is plenty of media coverage over this confusion: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-voter-registration-california-american-independent-party-20140403-story.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/4/2/are-calif-votersbeingaprilfooledbytheamericanindependentparty.html

In June 2008, the American Independent Party of California changed its national affiliation from the Constitution Party to the America's Independent Party (later renamed America's Party). A fresh count is needed, and an adjusted total to offset the flawed California numbers. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What decides what issues are included in the table?

And why is there virtually no mention of economic policy? Of the ten issues in the table, seven cover social policy, one covers economic policy, one foreign policy, and one deals with the electoral system. Why is there no mention of industrial relations, fiscal policy, market regulation, ownership of public assets, globalisation, protectionism and so on? On foreign policy, which is surely of great importance given the U.S's superpower status, why is there nothing on the parties' stances on Israel, on China, on the UN, IMF and World Bank, on nuclear proliferation and so on? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, what decides is suppose to be consensus among the editors. (Like everything on Wikipedia.) It looks like people have been changing it for a long time and if nobody objected to the changes it gets left that way. On each of these suggested topics you mentioned do you know each party's stance with references? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's precisely the point. I'm not American and the table fails to give me much information on the parties aside from their positions on a few relatively unimportant "wedge" issues. I'm particularly interested in whether the Democratic Party is more or less left-wing than the centre-left party in my own country. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I can only suggest you have a look at the article for Democratic Party (United States). I get the impression more people watch and edit that page then this one. I sorry if that is not more helpful. One other place you can try is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Just ask "How Left-wing is the US Democratic party compared to X party in Germany". You might find somebody who follows politics in both countries. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This has not been viewed for some time. I believe we should add more issues to the table. Some of these social policies are not considered of top importance. And some of the answers within them are too simplistic of answers for what a particular party actually believes. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pie Chart from 2004 no longer accurate

U.S. party affiliation, 2004

The pie chart needs updating: the Democrats had 43 million and Republicans 30 million as of 2012, according to their respective Wikipedia pages. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Section about legal powers and restrictions on political parties

I think it would be incredibly useful and informative to have a section on what parties can and can't do in comparison to regular groups of people or interest groups. Its hard to find comprehensive information on what special privileges parties have, and what restrictions there are on parties that aren't restrictions on normal groups. 73.231.102.229 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Democratic party more progressive than Green Party?

I don't think so. Kortoso (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"GOP"

If you search for "GOP" in this article, the first occurence is this sentence in the paragraph on 5th and 6th party system:

The latter steadily lost influence inside the GOP after 1964.

That seems to me to be an inappropriate way to introduce a new designation for one of the parties in an encyclopaedic article.--Nø (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

it's mentioned twice before then. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I got that wrong.--Nø (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-Life"

Searching for "Pro-Life" in the article, it occurs only once, in the following sentence in the secion on the Constitution Party:

The Constitution Party is strongly Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Rights, The Constitution Party is strongly Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Rights,...

As the label "pro-life" is by no means self-explanatory (if well known to an American audience), it should be either wikilinked, introduced properly, or replaced by a term or combination of terms that are more easily understood.--Nø (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court did not "Finalize" the 2000 election

I believe there is an overstatement in the chart showing the popular vote results of the two main parties. The chart legend includes the designator "S" to signify "election finalized by the supreme court" and applies that designation to the 2000 election. The Supreme Court case Bush v Gore did not "finalize" the federal election, it merely ended the recount in Florida. The election was "finalized" in the normal way by a meeting and vote of the electoral college after the states, including Florida, had designated their elector slates.

This is an exaggeration of the effect of Bush v Gore at best, and potentially a violation of WP:NPOV, implying that something was amiss in the process. I question the relevance of putting an asterisk on the 2000 election to the point of the chart, which seems to be to show the popular vote swings between the two major parties in presidential elections over time. Further, many elections involve court challenges that affect vote totals. Bush v. Gore was notable in that it went to the highest court in the country, but this doesn't at all make the supreme court's action akin to "choosing" a president, which is how it's presented in the chart by making it parallel with the "H" designation of "decided by the House of Representatives". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.122.3 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Political parties in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060130133301/http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml to http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123231119/http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html to http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526183505/http://web.greens.org/stats/ to http://web.greens.org/stats/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_09_05.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116040533/http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp to http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203062417/http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm to http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Highly partisan party comparison chart

The "Modern political party comparison" chart is exceptionally NPOV. Really, the only party that gets a "yes" for everything is the Green party? Nooo, nothing obvious here. The phrasing of the questions is highly suspect as well. Add in the "yes" versus "no" and you've got a truly terrible chart. I'm being bold and removing it (and posting it here) as something so blatantly POV should not remain in an article like this. I will admit, I don't know what should replace it, but simplistic questions like this designed to push a particular POV don't belong here. The differences are far more nuanced. Ravensfire (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Modern political party comparisons

Issues	Green	Democratic	Libertarian	Republican	Constitution
Primary related subjects	Green politics Eco-socialism Left-wing populism	Modern liberalism Progressivism Social liberalism	Libertarianism Classical liberalism Economic liberalism	Neoconservatism Economic liberalism Social conservatism	Paleoconservatism Fiscal conservatism Social conservatism
Universal healthcare	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Redistribution of income and wealth	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Open borders	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Drug liberalization	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Non-interventionism	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Gun control	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
End capital punishment	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No

I agree it's poor---tiny groups do not belong in the first place--here they take up most of the space. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

"GOP" cited in Overview, but no reference to what the accronym stands for...

re: The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party (nicknamed "GOP"), which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges.

...should be spelled out, either as a parenthetical following GOP (Grand Old Party), or vice versa: Grand Old Party (GOP)

OK - done. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Constitution Party

Looking at the Presidential vote totals, the Constitution Party is far closer in support to, say, the Party for Socialism and Liberation than it is to the Libertarian or Green parties. I suggest we drop it from the itemized category, and just have the Libertarian and Green parties there, with a reference to the list of parties for the rest. Thoughts? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fifth and sixth party systems

Among the various events across a thirty-year period that may have signaled the development of a sixth party system, I am surprised to see no mention of the Southern (or Suburban) Strategy of exploiting racial polarization, which strikes me (as a non-specialist) to have at least as much claim to a threshold event or process as the others mentioned. "When the New Deal coalition died" seems simultaneously definitive and vague. And can/should anyone cite, if not mention, the "experts" involved in this "debate"? Michael (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Overview section reorg

The Overview section reiterates part of the lead, and could otherwise BE the lead, which is anemic. This size article could and should have a decent size lead of 2-4 modest paragraphs. I'm proposing merging the Overview into the lead and expanding the lead to properly summarize the remainder of the article. (Of course, I just volunteered myself to do the work, when I have time to review relevant sources to boost my own knowledge). Sbalfour (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly done. Sbalfour (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Representation, Restrictions and Rigging

There's no textual discussion of the skewed representation of the parties due to senate mapping and electoral college distortions, voting restrictions imposed by the Republican party, and rigging of elections (gerrymandering by both parties). These are highly controversial topics, but nonetheless a feature rather than a bug, of our electoral politics and worthy of some exposition in a scholarly dissection of our politics. Suggestions? If not here, then where? Sbalfour (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Partisanship and opinion editing

This phrase originally composed by myself, has been trivially changed by fly-by editors 4 times since I originally added it: "(however, since 2008 starting with the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party has shifted to the far right)". This is hardly worthy of argumentation. I get the strong feeling that ulterior motives are underlying the trivial changes and obsessive focussing on this rather innocuous phrase. The editing comments do not indicate the real motives at work. I can cite the statement, which has evidently become a lightning rod. Partisanship has entered the encyclopedia. Sbalfour (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Character and constituency of the modern Republican party

The character of today’s (2020) Republican party, which is the party in power, and therefore the character of our government, is a “populist white-nationalist plutocracy”. It is dominated operationally by an oligarchy of men in tweed suits smoking fat Cuban cigars: specifically the Adelson, Mercer and Koch families. Its constituency includes principally evangelical christians and white nationalists, along with various allied groups with narrow issue interests like the NRA, Q-anon conspiracy theorists, anti-abortionists, anti-vaxxers, alt-right militias, “constitutionalists”, police unions, among others. That confluence is not momentary - it’s been accumulating since the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater in reaction to and rejection of the Civil Rights act of 1964, and given an intellectual pastiche by the godfather of the modern Republican movement William F. Buckley in the 1960s.

The bland text of the current Republican Party section which is a genteel reiteration of the GOP of yore (about the time of Ike?) is an embarrassment of poverty. And we also need to bring in the rise since the late 80s of the right-wing media eco-system that has essentially become a propaganda machine tor the party and de facto state media since the 2016 election.

It’s worth factoring in the larger political landscape of asymmetric polarization and identity politics which defines the mortal antagonism of today’s two parties.

There’s a lot of work to go here. Sbalfour (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Position of DNC

The position of Democratic Party (United States) is still open to discussion also in its talk page. It isn't true to call it center-left, even for US standarts as most of the de jure leftist parties condemn DNC to be on the right side of the spectrum just like RNC, and the both duopoly parties have members that use the both parties interchangebly. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger

Proposed merger into List of political parties in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed: neither of the pages were tagged in accordance with WP:MERGE. A new proposal should tag both pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

---

We should merge into List of political parties in the United States. [User:Barnacles14|Barnacles14]] (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merger from Party system#United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

---

The content of Party system#United States has significant length, and does not contain a summary of this page. A merger should be held. Pianostar9 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the "systems" article provides comparison with other countries, a valuable asset that would disappear by moving the text out. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elected officials unaffiliated with political parties

Have put in a short section on Elected officials unaffiliated with political parties. Understand that this is a article about parties not independents, but as there are so many more independents that third party officials, and as the two groups often serve something like the same roll, I thought it allowable. (For example Ross Perot ran twice for president with very similar campaigns, first as an independent, then as the "Reform Party" candidate.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)