Talk:Politics of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pie Chart of American political affiliation

The chart is five years out of date and I did some searching the numbers are quite a bit different now shouldn't Wikipedia reflect that? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.2 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization of American Political Parties

"The two major parties, in particular, have no formal organization at the national level that controls membership, activities, or policy positions, though some state affiliates do."

Can I ask what state affiliates these are, and in which way they control these things?

RadicalSubversiv E 19:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can ask, heh heh heh. Ellsworth 16:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Choosing party chairs

Ellsworth just removed a statement that party nominees and incumbent presidents have the power to choose the chair of their party's national committee, with an edit summary that said "see talk". I'm fairly certain the statement is true (and I can come up with a couple citations pretty quickly), but I wanted to see what his reasoning was... RadicalSubversiv E 19:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The incumbent president, yes. The party nominee, no. To give you a f'rinstance, Howard Dean was just selected as DNC chair by the committee members by vote. Prior to that, Terry McAuliffe was picked in 2001 in the same manner, and he served a four year term. Kerry had nothing to do with the selection of Dean, nor did Gore with respect to McAuliffe. In 1993, the Republicans having lost the election, Haley Barbour was elected chairman by the RNC at large. In 1989, Ron Brown was elected by the DNC as its chair following the loss by Michael Dukakis. I suppose the sentence should read something like "The chairman of the party which holds the office of the Presidency is selected by the President. The chairman of the party which does not hold the presidency is selected by the party's National Committee." Ellsworth 13:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't quite true -- nominees may always seek to replace the chair (and other party officers), and tradition dictates that the committee will do so immediately following the national convention; obviously losing nominees hence have less influence at the subsequent January/February national committee meetings. Sandy Maisel's textbook, Parties and Elections in America, makes this clear with reference to the Democrats, but notes that Mondale was forced to accept the incumbent chair under slightly unusual circumstances in 1984 (pg82).

Since then, the matter has not arisen (Ron Brown, the incumbent chair in 1992, was close to Clinton and Clinton's DNC leadership was of course acceptable to Gore). There was a great deal of press in March 2004 on the subject of whether Kerry would seek to oust McAuliffe, speculation which was ended when Kerry visited DNC headquarters, and then named his own aide, John Sasso, to work with McAuliffe at the DNC (New York Times, March 4; Inside Politics, March 3; Associated Press, March 5).

The situation with the GOP is less clear, though it seems that Richard Bond may have been George H. W. Bush's choice in 1992.

See if you think my new wording expresses all of this accurately. RadicalSubversiv E 15:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be inclusive enough. Obviously, the situation has not always been the same over time. Ellsworth 18:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Origin of multiple jurisdictions

Is the section titled "Federal, state and local governments" accurate? I know that the independent colonies created the federal government, but as I understand it that's where the "bottom-up" development ends. The colony governments created the counties, cities, and towns, not the other way around. Some clarification would be appreciated. Gazpacho 09:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Very Basic Question

It strikes me as odd that this series is titled "Politics of United States" when it seems equally well to describe the "Government of the United States." The Constitution and (despite partisan battles) the Supreme Court do not strike me as primarily political. On the other hand, in a series on "Politics of the United States," I'm surprised not to see listed "Minority Leaders," nor "Whips" (whatever they call themselves nowadays), as well as PACs and other notable lobbies (NOW) and congressional interest groups like the Con. Black Caucus. Has the title of this article ever been up for discussion before? Xoloz 04:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not the same; one might argue that Politics is the blood and Government (Constitution etc) is the bone of the body called the US. Ancheta Wis 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a basic question at all. A pretty fundamental one, really. I agree with Ancheta Wis that they are distinct, but not with the distinction Ancheta makes. Government is embedded in politics, is part of politics. I'll stop there because I'm not supposed to talk about the topic, just the article. But my suggestion is that it would be an improvement if the article broadened its scope to include non-institutional and non-party oriented politics. What about the politics of local communities that are unconnected, at least directly, with institutional politics? NStamp

International agreements that the USA has not ratified

Recent edits in this section add text that seems to justify why USA doesn't participate in the agreements. Adding a long list of non-signatories instead of very significant ones seem of little information. Plus expressions like "Notable refusals of compulsory ICC jurisdiction" instead of "Notable non-signatories" doesn't seem NPOV to me. Can someone fix this? I don't want to do it myself as I started the section and my fix would be a revert; perhaps the changes are really adding something. vaceituno 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, those edits look appropriate to me. This article is about U.S. politics; giving a brief explanation as to why the U.S. has not ratified each treat seems appropriate. Brandon39 09:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see a problem with that; the WHY is POV, as someone could edit the section with other reasons . What if we start arguing if the Kyoto treaty wasn't signed for purely economics reasons and lack of solidarity with the rest of the world? The signature of USA is very important as is the most important polutant in the world... I don't think any reasons at all should be given in the article, or perhaps a representations of different points of view of why every treatry wasn't signed.

vaceituno 00:00, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to make a list of the countries have a better match with USA having not ratified most of those treaties...Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it. vaceituno 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The following:

" * The U.S. withdrew from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. This was a treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons."

Has been removed. The US _did_ ratify the treaty in question, therefore including it in "International Agreements that the United States has not ratified is inappropriate and misleading. Besides that, all of the other treaties listed are multilateral treaties that at least a dozen parties are signatory to, the AMB treaty was a bilateral treaty that only the USA and USSR were party to.

If the ABM treaty is listed, it sould be in a section headed "International agreements that the US has ratified and later withdrawn from", not "International agreements that the US has not ratified", and it should be mentioned that the ABM treaty specifically allowed either party to withdraw after giving a certain amount of advance notice, which is not common in treaties.

Removed information about treaties and international participation

I think deleting information from this article doesn't make it more informative. If the information really doesn't belong here, ask for it to be moved or create a new article. And remember Politics doesn't mean National Politics only, international politics is important too. vaceituno 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Public Inquiry mechanisms

Besides the Congressional Committees, are there any other avenues for a public inquiry in the same fashion as a Royal Commission in Commonwealth countries? (non-American) Htra0497 00.11, 27 January 2006 (AEST)

Special Commissions can and are appointed by the President (usually after an act of Congress creates the Commission and appropriates funding for it) to investigate important issues, the 9/11 Commission being a notable recent example. Ddye 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom DeLay peer review

Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

POV and Diplomacy

Some people have been using this article to express their POV on American diplomacy. Politics is a big enough area without getting into diplomacy--none of the deleted material in fact mentioned any connection to US politics. Rjensen 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize Politics of the United States

The series does not link to where it says it does, and the way this it organized makes no sense. I propose to put the links to where they actually say they're going. I will wait 1 week. If I don't hear back from anybody, I will proceed with the changes.

I came across the portal "Project on politics and government of the United States", but there is no article by that name: only government and polictics in separate division. It likely will need a category, and linkage. I think the politics and government need to be related.Richiar 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In the series template "Politics and Government of the United States", Federal government has its own link. There should be a link also to "Politics of the United States" in the same template. The link "Politics and government of the United States, as a series, needs to have a category and article that is exactly that.

Politics and government of the United States //// Richiar 14:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute the Republican party are not liberals and the Democrats are not conservatives. Shouldn't that be switched around?

Material moved from List of political parties in the United States

This may or may not duplicate content of the accompanying article:

Political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution; which defines a nonpartisan system in which votes are cast for individuals, not parties. Political parties nontheless exist because of political freedom and freedom of association. Political parties are private organizations that manage themselves, organize primary elections for local, state, and federal offices, define common policy initiatives, and run campaign contribution drives for the benefit of their party candidates. No laws limit the number of political parties that may operate, so theoretically, it can operate as a simple multi-party system. However, since the Civil War (1864), the country has had a de facto two-party system, with occasional inlets made by so-called "third parties". This is largely a consequence of the winner-takes-all election system and restrictive ballot access laws imposed on the other political parties, as well as the leadership rules in Congress. There are and have been many political parties other than the two dominant ones (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party), but most are generally considered to be of only limited and temporary political significance.

It comes from the lead section of List of political parties in the United States, where it was contrary to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria.
--Jerzy•t 05:58 & 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a "How-to" Section

"How do I register to vote?", "How do I create a new Political Party?", "How do I elect a President", "How do I elect a Congressman or Senator?", "How do I ...". These would be great questions to answer in this section. There are many folks who don't know how the system works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.40.121.34 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

it is wikipedia policy not to include how-to's; however, there is a wiki for this at [1] and there is also wikibooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Typical popular-misconception

Here we have a prime example of popular misconception being portraited as fact on Wikipedia, its main detracting factor. Someone has stated that the New Deal "revitalized" the economy during the Great Depression, and did not cite any sources. Thats incorrect, it is estimated that the New Deal extended the Great Depression, as it was supposed to end (following the data) after 5-6 years. I will search for an article to back up the position and then cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.229.247 (talk • contribs)

Incomplete sentence in State government

"Has a" That's the last sentence of the first paragraph. Should it be completed or deleted?--69.234.187.252 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Civics versus Politics

The current introduction of this article is more civics than politics. Actually, it's all civics, and no politics.

While I can sympathize with doing this to avoid edit wars and bickering, we should still strive for accuracy and relevance.

A lot of contention remains unresolved due to conflation, hence some issues can be productively dealt with by separating the species of difference:

• rhetorical, ostensible or gimmicks - what politicians say and do are commonly different: are a given set of politicians only ostensibly different, are they only ostensibly in favor of a given issue?
• substantial, real - what are the manifest differences, such as in motive and action?
• voter blocks - e.g. politicians speak favorably to a group of voters, yet don't act on those issues: does a voter block represent the platform of a candidate, or is the candidate merely good at getting their votes?

Breaking up contentious issues like this can facilitate dealing with the facts - it's about drilling down to the substance of the matter. Blablablob (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside Links

I removed the "CNN" politics link. There is no reason to link to commercial websites in relation to politics. Most networks tend to have a bias, either right (Fox News) or left (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS). I think we should leave out those websites, their pretty much unrelated to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.74.222 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but am amazed that you think CNN, ABC, or CBS are 'left'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of the United States" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

Catergory

Is there a category for multiracial/biracial politicians in the USA or is it that there aren't really any multiracial/biracial politicians out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.244.172 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding "Lobbyist" to a section

Under the "Political pressure groups" section, there is no mention of Lobbyist or Lobbying. Not sure if this is intentional (ie: may have been edited out). I think it should be included given the HUGE role that Lobbying plays in the American political system.

If a reference is added, I think it would be appropriate to link to this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

I am new to editing and did not feel comfortable trying to "work it in". Wimfort (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Obama loves God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.151.38 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of colors?

How come there is no mention of the colors of the parties... why is democratic party blue and republican party red? Red is Communism and blue is ancien regime... yet the colors are switched in US... WHY?--70.122.117.52 (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the US, party colours have not been as important as in other countries. Before the 2000 election, people, if they had any thought on it at all, associated blue with Republicans and red with Democrats. Because of lack of a deep association between party and colour (and probably some reluctance to call either party "Red" due to that colour's connotations), the news media used various colours to show the states won by presidential candidates for decades. In 2000, most of them had blue for Democrats and red for Republicans, and with the closeness of the election, commentators like Tim Russert explained various scenarios by referring to the "red states" and "blue states" on the map. The whole thing is interesting it itself, which is why we have the article "Red states and blue states", but whether it is actually substantial enough for a mention in this article is debatable. I don't really have an opinion either way, so I'm not going to be the one to formulate proposed text. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)