Talk:Political party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Political Parties are Essential to Control Government[edit]

Wikipedia is boldly launched on 'Political party' but there won't be any wind to move that discussion until the unique role of parties in America is cited. I'm uncertain how to 'edit' the existing articles because they are non sequiturs.

The role of any party worth it's formation is to gain and maintain control of government power. The first sentence of Wikipedia's party article sort of inches up to that but it's bloodless and only half right in the balance of the piece. It is as if Wikipedia doesn't think there is a constant battle to keep government in check. That was the role of political parties in America until 1948 when events unfolded that changed the political landscape in ways few can recall.

What happened in the 1948 Democratic National Conventionwas the passage of the civil rights platform plank crafted by Hubert Humphrey. It was a bold and righteous document, so bold that it caused the walkout of southern delegates -- mostly incumbent officeholders of the South -- who knew -- or thought --they could not bring the requirements back to their states. They formed the Dixiecrat party. It was generally conceded, as a result, that Harry S Truman would lose the election to Dewey. But that didn't happen. The people of America voted for Truman and that very strong civil rights plank that clearly wouldn't pass in today's Congress. That platform changed civil rights in America.

The result, little noted in history and even less in Wikipedia, is that incumbents and power-holders began the systematic disassembly of both national parties. This deliberate wreckage is nearly complete and evidence is everywhere of the tragedy. America's press spends so much time tracking the current horrors in America's government that they never find time to wonder how it happened.

While the press speaks constantly about the "Democrats" and "Republicans" in Congress, for example, there seems to be no memory that none of them are bound by platforms of the stature formerly attained. Even if platforms were drawn, party discipline requiring they be followed is no long in place. In short, to say a given officeholder is a member of this or that party is fanciful. They do not necessarily share any set of goals with the large body of party members who formerly issued platforms that expressed the will of the people.

To put it as simply and plainly as I can, the platforms -- defined by Truman as "A Contract with the People" -- were formed to build winning coalitions. Making up the planks were interests as diverse as the nation itself, from labor to industrialists, from the medical profession to tobacco growers. The planks came from the smallest precincts to the largest, rural to cities. The deal was simple, If I vote for this party you will pass my plank! Politicians who ran under the party banner were committed to support the platform! If they did not they could be and sometimes were kicked out of the party. Simple as that.

So party discipline was the handle the people kept over elected governments at every level. After 1948 politicians openly acted to defy this system. They simply did not want "the people" telling them what to do. And, we have to think, that was where we got the space program that seems to have resulted in very little benefit to your average person at the cost of billions of dollars better spent on our decrepit educational systems.

If you read those last two paragraphs several times it might strike you as very obvious that when they killed the party system they didn't replace it with any power left in the hands of the folks in the precincts. Hence we do not have control of the government in this former democracy. Elections mean nothing in the present system of primaries where television ads are used to sell popular candidates long before the parties have any opportunity to craft the platforms of the days before 1948. That is not an accident and I think Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to put this up before the people if it wants to be an honest publication.

(At 72, Bill Eger looks back over an intensely political life. He was lured into political campaign activity as a volunteer in Texas, first supporting Ralph Yarborough for U. S. Senatee and then Adlai Stevenson for president. Those two remain important in Eger's view of life in America before citizens lost their political power. No longer active in political matters, Eger finds present Democratic activists and office-holders mostly cynical and uninterested in following old party rules -- in states where they still exist -- because of reluctance to "embarrass" party politicians. The old rules kicked politicians out of party membership for failure to support a party platform after election as a nominated member of both parties. That was how parties used to keep government in its place, as a servant of the people.)

Thank you, Billeger Bill Eger <> Bill Eger 11:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


I have tried to respond to the accusation of blandness and the lack of references by inserting James Madison's (and David Hume's) view of factions (parties)

Fenton Robb 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Parties & Colours[edit]

Under "parties and colors": exceptions to what? So far in the article before that point, the colors haven't been associated with any parties yet. -- John Owens 12:39 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Fixed. Kaihsu 18:09 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

In Commonwealth countries (well, at least in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) the "leftist" "progressive", or "labour" parties use red. "Rightist", "Conservative" parties use blue. I always assumed it was because it was thought that leftists are closer to communists than are rightists. In the USA it appears the convention is reversed when they speak of red and blue states. Should this be mentioned?Avalon 06:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian democracy[edit]

Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Right & laissez-faire[edit]

"Right tends to favor laissez-faire" I read this statement throughout wikipedia, and in the united states I believe this is very untrue. What is normally called the "right" here, or conservatives, usually SAY they favor protectionist economic policies, whereas the left says they favor more socialist policies, but both sides end up DOING more laissez-faire style policies when they get into office.

The right wing as more than laissez-faire and fascism[edit]

The article implies that the right wing consists only of laissez-faire fundamentalists and fascists; however, being rather tired as I am, I can't manage to think of a term that would include more moderate conservative policies. Does anyone want to give me a hand by suggesting one and adding it to the list of right-wing political subgenres? Thanks. -- Batata Kartoffl

Non-partisan legislatures[edit]

Maybe we should mention non-partisan legislatures (like Nebraska or Jersey). Marnanel 13:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms and Supporting Arguments of the existence of the Political Party[edit]

It would be good to include a section criticising the existence of political parties.--Darrelljon 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Crticisms and Supports would be real nice --HoO8MyRiCe

"Britt is HOT! and so is sam " I could not relate this sentence to the political parties. Probably it is technical error.

Does anyone remember a study on party affiliation and values?[edit]

I recall hearing of a US study which suggested that people's values are influenced by the political party they identify with (Democrat or Republican), more than the other way around. Does anyone have a link, or remember any details of this? --Singkong2005 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template usable on articles[edit]

{{Political party}}

I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep Cwolfsheep 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say this has been replaced by {{Infobox political party}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In a democracy, can only a electoral body be a party?[edit]

A dispute has developed concerning Socialist Convergence (Mexico); this is a organisation with the status of a national political association, a legal form for small organisations with more than 5,000 supporters which are preparing to become electoral alternatives. Can this be described as a party, and categorised as such in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't know/care, but we have a difficult conflict between two editors on this topic and I would welcome your guidance. --Duncan 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit conflicts about CS is only one of several pages touched by the issue. User:Rune.welsh has done edits on several edits on various articles on Mexican parties which are highly confusing. The fact that a party loses its electoral registration does of course not mean that it automatically ceases to function as a political party. In some cases the outcome is quite absurd (like Socialist Convergence or Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, organizations that obvioulsy keep on functioning as political parties, despite legal recognition), but in other cases I think that several edits made by the said user lead to uncertainty on whether several parties are defunct or not. This applies for example to Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution, Party of the Nationalist Society, Social Alliance Party, Mexican Democratic Party and Social Democracy (Mexico), where parties are put in the Category:Former political parties in Mexico without any clarification whether the parties ceased to exist or not. National Synarchist Union is put in the "Former parties" category, in spite of current signs of existence. --Soman 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that "official registration" is an incredibly poor way to determine whether or not a party is authentically a party. First, party registration varies greatly from country to country. In some countries, perhaps most notably my own, the United States of America, there is no formal electoral institute that the parties have to register with. In other countries, not only do parties have to register, but the bar is set so high that all sorts of parties are excluded from the "legitimacy" of being "official." For the sake of neutrality, even tiny parties with such little support that they can't get the mandated amount of signatures or whatever should be considered parties.
However, there's factor that troubles me: some parties are ideologically opposed to democracy and thus see participation in the democratic process as a sort of "sell-out." Obviously this would most likely be seen in hardline extremist parties, such as orthodox militant Marxist parties. Simply because they don't participate in electoral democracy as defined by the state does not make them any less a party, however. I don't know anything about Socialist Convergence (Mexico). Perhaps they don't participate in elections because they are ideologically against them, perhaps they don't participate because they know they would loose, perhaps it's a combination of the two. However, I am of the opinion that in most cases, we should probably err of the side of calling groups like that a party. --Descendall 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. In the particular example of Socialist Convergence and many of the orgs linked by Soman, they don't participate in elections because they can't do so by law. Maybe in other countries there are not set criteria of what a party is or is not, but it happens that in Mexico there are and as such they have to be made clear in the appropriate articles. I'm Mexico calling yourself a party does not automatically make you so and this is what some editors apparently don't want to accept. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the Mexican state is the only source of guidance here. Nor, indeed, is electoral participation the defining feature of a party. Many communist parties do not stand in elections: the Communist Party of Great Britain, for example, has typically endorsed the Labour Party. But it clearly is a political power since its aim is to replace the governing power. Socialist Convergence may, or may not, be or become a party: but the test is not whether or nor it wins that label from the Mexican government. --Duncan 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Suggestion[edit]

I am no expert at any of this, (in fact, I am an Indepedent and stick with George Washington on the matter: SHOULD NOT EXIST!) but with all the information I am recently coming across (In government class), would it not help if you guys started a Wikiproject for all political theories, parties, and ideologies? Colonel Marksman 04:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of a political party[edit]

Please note revert wars at Popular Socialist Party (Mexico) and Popular Socialist Party of Mexico. User:Rune.welsh seems to maintain that only organization that pass the rather rigid registration process of the federal election institute can be considered as a political party, notwithstanding that there are thousands of political parties around the world which have no formal recognition at all. Particularily confusing are wordings of Rune.welsh like "Popular Socialist Party (Spanish: Partido Popular Socialista, PPS) was a communist party in Mexico.", which leads the reader to believe that the party is no longer communist rather than clarifying that it is a communist party that has lost its electoral registration. --Soman 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: intro paragraph[edit]

I came to this article expecting to find, at the very top, the definition of a political party. To my surprise, I found none at all—this should be rectified as per WP:LEAD. —Psychonaut 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the intro was deleted back in December, possibly by mistake. I have just restored it. —Psychonaut 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PRC communist party[edit]

Can you call that a party? Isn't that a dictatorship. --Arigato1 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

one party rule is a dictatorship and can be seen as undemocratic, however; How it is organized makes it a party. An example of a dictatorship without a party would be a military junta. --Wilson 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Political Party[edit]

What will be the consensus parameters for determining whether a group of citizens, engaged in a political activity, constitutes a 'Political Party'?

Will the quantity of citizens participating be a primary factor?

Will the quality of the policies professed by a group be considered? And/or the philosophies and beliefs?

Can a single, commonly held voting strategy be considered as sufficient to call those participating in same as a 'Political Party'?

Just what do the participants in this wiki believe makes a 'political party', a political party?

[From Bill Eger] A political party is an organization of citizens who seek to control government power.

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The way that definition is applied in varying situations is extremely different. In the United States of America parties are very carefully controlled by government in ways that would not have been allowed sizty years ago. Parties must follow laws that restrict activities. The proliferation of pre-election primaries was the final death of effective parties because they have nothing to do with what the voters want, only offering a choice of what participating politicians want to achieve. The individual candidates spout their ambitions and the voters choose from them which they like best. There is no rule that a candidate nominated or elected must follow either what was promised in their campaigns or requested by groups -- including remnants of parties -- before the election. There is no control. Bill Eger 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brokerage Parties[edit]

The general concensus in the artical seems to be that all parties have some basic ideology. Should it be noted that some parties change thier positions from election to election to fit public will? Perhaps this is just a Canadian example but both the liberals and conservatives have at various times proposed tax cuts/hikes, war support/unsupport, definition of marraige, etc.--Wilson 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Bahai references[edit]

I removed the following for PoV:

[Nonpartisan systems...], an important model of which is found in the practice of Baha'i administration.<ref>Abizadeh 2005.</ref>

Baha'i administration appears to be "important" only to those with an intense interest in Bahai. Googling

"Bahá'í administration"
"Bahai administration"


"Baha'i administration"

produce 6,040, 789, and 5,120 raw hits respectively. The majority of these hits are for the difficult correct spelling with special characters, reflecting the topic's interest to those with sufficient interest in Bahá'í to be invested in showing extraordinary respect for that spelling. The URLs and page titles, except on WP and in cases where explicitly Bahá'í-written texts have been included among other e-texts, reflect Bahá'í-specific groups of pages. The claim that a relatively small religion has made an "important" contribution to political and social theory is an extraordinary claim, and taking it seriously will require extraordinary evidence that academic political scientists and sociologists consider the contribution important, and that notable organizations verifiably not dominated by Bahá'ís say that it has been important to them to have adopted the approach from Bahá'í or from sources that are verifiably derived from the Bahá'í methods.
--Jerzyt 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

registration cards[edit]

what does UNA mean on a registration card & does it mean they can vote for anyone in the primary &the general election —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the history of the formation of political parties?[edit]

I think it should be needed to put in this article.--MaGioZal (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


hey there -i'm curious if people believe anarchists form political parties. i know it may sound contradictory on the surface, but i'm hoping so can answer this question in a technical sense. Teetotaler 5 April 2009


Political partyCivil government political party — This article deals only with political parties in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole. User: 13:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Please discuss this multiple page move request here. Jafeluv (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RFC bot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

to anybody fighting the goverment in iran why dont you paint your hands red and leave a print of it on iranian goverment buildings this is a peaceful way of showing your contempt for the present goverment in iran and the bloodshed their causing leaveing a message that will grow and grow causing embarrisment to the goverment and allowing people who are affraid to speak out a voice! with western jounalist printing the pictures to show the massive conept for the currant situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


I dispute "Political change is often easier with a coalition government than in one-party or two-party dominant systems." The opposite case is more often made, in the context of plurality vs proportional systems: that a complete change of governing party affords opportunity for sweeping change, whereas an incoming coalition will likely negotiate a compromise programme similar to the outgoing coalition (especially if some parties are in both). jnestorius(talk) 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Partisan style" section is completely missing information about true multi-party systems[edit]

The "partisan style" section currently has the following subsections:

  • Non-partisan - the entire concept of parties doesn't exist
  • One-party system - only one party is allowed to hold power
  • Two-party system - two strong parties hold all actual executive power
  • Multi-party system - two strong parties hold almost all actual executive powers, but there might be a few minority parties holding a small share of it

There is no actual mention at all about true multi-party systems where actual executive power is shared pretty much equally among more than two major parties. This system is actually used in at least Finland, Sweden, and Germany. It is, however, not used in either the United States or the United Kingdom which are, in effect, two-party systems (Democrats vs Republicans in the USA, Labours vs Tories in the UK), but this is not the "American and British" Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia in the English language, and so it should cover all aspects of the world. JIP | Talk 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Citation Justification for "Balanced Voting multiple-party systems" Section[edit]

The page claims that "Extensive studies including simulations and polls[4] by Donald Arthur Kronos, have shown." I was surprised when I followed the citation link to an online blog page with an internet poll. While I find the topic of interest, I don't think this paragraph is anything more than somebody's blog opinion. If there is legitimate research which reveals the effectiveness of this style of voting, then I think it should be discussed on this page, but as it stands, I think this entire section should be deleted. Here is the link for those who'd like to take a look: Jwhester (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Curvilinear Disparity[edit]

I am looking for suitable places to introduce links to an article on curvilinear disparity. I helped create the article but it is currently an orphan. Curvilinear disparity is a political theory proposed by the English political scientist John D May, which posits that in catch-all or mass parties, rank-and-file members of the party are more ideologically driven that the party's leadership or its voters. It is an idea that is commonplace in the media and political commentaries, although May himself is rarely cited. For example, the British media often talk about "old Labour" members being more ideological than other members. Likewise, the US media often talks about the Republican or Democratic "bases" needing to be placated by the party leaderships (because they are more ideologically charged than the "independent" Republicans or Democrats). Would it be too much of a stretch to introduce a link in the "Types of Parties" section? Perhaps just one sentence after mass parties are mentioned. getoffmycloud 13:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying scope of article (see edit 11th April 2014)[edit]

The international 'actual' and 'cultural' differences between the operation and recognition of "political parties" is a very interesting topic for the general reader. We tend to more or less 'know' our own system. but our understanding of (for example) USA depends on whether we have watched "The West Wing" (and relies on this being a reasonably accurate representation). A political party operates within a political system, and, IMO, can't be sensibly discussed outwith a discussion of that system. There is much talk at the moment on the BBC World Service about the Indian Election, and it is clear that political parties there need to be understood differently from the UK, USA, France, Germany etc.

Yours Boldly (and constructively) an IP editor (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In anticipation of a reply from Psychonaut, WP says that a lead article is required to 'define the topic'. This is not the same as defining "political party". The topic appears to be an examination of the notion of a political party, as it manifests itself internationally, and cross-culturally. This is what I have tried to summarise (although I have introduced some elements that signal my expectation that there may be disagreement). If the topic is intended to be restricted culturally and/or geographically, it needs to say so in the article title, IMO.

"Political party" is a compund noun, which could appear in a dictionary, and could be defined. But Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Here, "Political party" is the NAME (or Title) of the article, and the purpose of the introduction is to define/refine/clarify the notable topic that the NAME denotes. By all means improve the current offering, but do not (please) revert to a dictionary-type definition.

regards, redalasdair

Membership and dues[edit]

In some political party systems around the world, there is a formal membership process, and members have to pay dues. Those dues are used, in part, to finance electoral campaigns.

In the two major US political parties, membership is signaled through voter registration, and as far as I know doesn't require any dues paying. The Democratic National Committee FAQ says of the Democratic Party, "Membership in the Party is open to anyone who is registered to vote as a Democrat or who generally votes for Democratic candidates or who identifies with the Democratic Party."

Is there a clear distinction between these two styles of political party systems? Are they named? Is the US unique, or are there other countries that have this looser style of membership? --ESP (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

political pjvnjfsg rhbtbgrsibgfbe fvsqtiu hag ie gaeurgg u ht hiuegotr gu tu hwtiu hauth t ht hituqhg iaughtug hg it hgi twiug h gg ugd gegh qgh iqgt ti ugw huwtg hirwu iwrh igh ihrt rh erh ih urh ih uth qtrhburt hw rth h i hh i hih iuet hi uih h hw hh i hgiusv trt b jgbi wir hg gh h wirthgt u

trhg hpth wr hh ioh wuir h w hriuwthb i hiuwh bbuwh ih t ihutg ihi jf gbjsf bhfgbjfdbvbjafnvjanvfb g hbw thgthvhg iu hwit hitu hiutg it t hgi wugh ogh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 

Types of parties[edit]

The ‘Types’ section includes relevant information and is a good start, but it still needs a lot of expanding. There is no mention of ‘catch-all’ or ‘cartel’ parties, and the information about cadre and mass parties is limited and short. I plan to create new subheadings for each of these four types of parties and provide more detailed definitions and overviews of each of them, along with examples and with mention of historical context. Eannina1 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea Eannina1, I look forward to reading your contribution! - Astrophobe (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Feedback on purposed improvements
Very well noticed that this section of the article does not mention cartel and catch-all parties, I too believe that you could create a subheading for each particular party as there is a lot that could be potentially written. You could go in which of the parties are policy, vote or office seeking. And maybe link some of the parties to the literature we have read on responsibility and responsiveness?
The protest party is another, more recent, party you may have missed or have not decided to include. It might be a concept you want to explore. These parties emerge out of a protest vote, it is from what I am aware of a new development in the party typology and would ad some modern relevance to your article. WikiNicholasUvA (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes agreed that there can be a lot more included under the Types section! If I'm not mistaken what Nicholas is referring to is also often termed niche parties in political science literature, so you could maybe use this to search for additional references. Marciojoseph (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think creating subheadings and further explanations for the cadre, mass, catch-all and cartel parties are great contributions! I agree with the two comments above that including protest parties/niche parties as a type of party makes for an interesting addition as well. You are probably planning on doing this already, but I would list the parties in the order of their evolution, so starting with the cadre party, then the mass party, the catch-all party, the cartel party and finally the “niche party” (if you want to include it). Maybe you could also create an overview of the main differences between the types of parties in the form of a table. --BlueSofa (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I really like the improvements that you have made to the 'Types' section. It is very clear and well-referenced. The only small thing I would possibly change is the paragraph on 'Catch-all parties'. Under this subheading the definition of 'catch-all parties' is given somewhere in the middle of the paragraph in contrast to the other types of political parties, where the definition is given in the first sentence under each subheading. PokingNicolas (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bahujan Lok Dal[edit]

It is a political party in bihar its National President is md targheeb alam ansari Bldparty (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)