![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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.
Expansionist Party probably wants putting in somewhere Secretlondon 23:42, Dec 22, 2003 (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)
Information that is missing here is about general character of the US parties (i.e. that these are non-ideological parties etc)
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)
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 Kraus e 10:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is now a subsection of #Article section on most significant parties
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.
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)
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)
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)
Teddy Rosevelt's comeback bid was as a Bull-Mooser. Merecat 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if it is or is not a actual political party?
is this not affliated to the international pirate party movement? 91.135.10.170 ( talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
i think Silver Party and Silver Republican Party are missing? please confirm. thanx. Enlarge 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No love for the Yippies? Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
--
108.3.157.32 (
talk)
21:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's now within the section
#Article section on most significant parties.--
Jerzy•
t
20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Kraus e 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
image:Party affiliation USA.jpg
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Tho i've futzed with only one of them significantly, the last 3 columns of the table are worthy of controversy:
--
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)
I have removed 3 paragraphs, for the reasons stated:
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)
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.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the otherwise undiscussed two-day-old edit summarized as
bcz
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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.
Expansionist Party probably wants putting in somewhere Secretlondon 23:42, Dec 22, 2003 (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)
Information that is missing here is about general character of the US parties (i.e. that these are non-ideological parties etc)
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)
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 Kraus e 10:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is now a subsection of #Article section on most significant parties
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.
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)
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)
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)
Teddy Rosevelt's comeback bid was as a Bull-Mooser. Merecat 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if it is or is not a actual political party?
is this not affliated to the international pirate party movement? 91.135.10.170 ( talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
i think Silver Party and Silver Republican Party are missing? please confirm. thanx. Enlarge 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No love for the Yippies? Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
--
108.3.157.32 (
talk)
21:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's now within the section
#Article section on most significant parties.--
Jerzy•
t
20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Kraus e 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
image:Party affiliation USA.jpg
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Tho i've futzed with only one of them significantly, the last 3 columns of the table are worthy of controversy:
--
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)
I have removed 3 paragraphs, for the reasons stated:
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)
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.
--
Jerzy•
t
06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the otherwise undiscussed two-day-old edit summarized as
bcz
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)