Talk: List of political parties in the United States
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
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)
Information that is missing here is about general character of the US parties (i.e. that these are non-ideological parties etc)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
| Contents |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
