Talk:Party system

h

Canadian party system needs to be updated

Alas, I lack specific sources, however, I would strongly argue that the "fourth party system," which existed after 1993 and was defined by regionalist protest parties (Bloc Quebecois and Reform) and liberal economics instead of Keynesianism has long since subsided. As of 2011 the Bloc Quebecois is a nearly irrelevant rump, the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance long ago folded into a more nationally oriented conservative party (by merging with the PC Party), the left of centre NDP has been competitive in the past several elections (after a decade of marginalisation), and the current governing Liberals have to a large degree abandoned the fiscal conservative orthodoxy of the 1990s.

The House of Commons of today, dominated by three nationally-oriented parties (Liberals, Conservatives and NDP) resembles that of the 1980s far more so than the 1990s. When I have time I will likely introduce an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.136.28 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, given the results of the 2019 and 2021 elections, the general rule of thumb of the NDP being the fourth or distant third party is pretty solid, 2011 was an extraordinary exception, not the rule as has been made clear. The Canadian Alliance and PCs merged, but the CPC Maintains a very regionally concentrated base just as its two predecessors did and the "irrelevant rump" of the BQ has come roaring back, I don't think it's really fair to consider the "fourth party system," as ever having really ended.WanukeX (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

party system

Someone needs to do something where I inserted the several question marks (at the end of the main [2nd] paragraph under "U.S. Models"). It is an incomplete sentence, but I added question marks instead of deleting it because it looks like somebody was starting to type something that didn't get finished.Shanoman 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Many textbooks?

The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year.

Then why, pray tell, does Fifth Party System only have 52 hits in Google Books; some of them one essay in a collection or an entry in a glossary? For comparison, there are four times as many books with "Political Science" in the title (most of them look like textbooks) which mention New Deal (only three of them mention the FPS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Google does not have good access to most textbooks. I actually looked at 8 recent pool sci textbooks and each talked about Party Systems. Some had more historical details and some had very little history.Rjensen 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

for a detailed bibliography with many refs to 5th ps see [1] Rjensen 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

standard usage in political science

The Party Sytems model is used in many college-level textbooks: for example: American Politics, Second Edition William Lasser, [2] Chapter Nine: Political Parties

It's also used in the major journals in both history and political science:

• PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
• Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
• The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
• Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
• The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
• Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
• The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
• Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
• Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
• PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
• Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
• The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
• The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413

Rjensen 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And we note, by the bibliography, in Richard Jensen's papers. I know it has been used in a couple dozen journal articles; although, if this were indeed a "major" topic, there would be many more than this remarkably small collection over three decades. If I denied this, I would be putting the article up for deletion. But enough of the vanity editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

no conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest--none of the editors has any financial or other interest in any statement made here. PManderson has a conflict of interest inasmuch as he repeatedly insists that his own knowledge of political history should trump all the experts listed here. Rjensen 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual interest is sufficient for the tag. This is a vanity article by Prof. Richard Jensen, who has published largely in this fragment of political science, and is one of the "experts" so airily designated by Rjensen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

US-only/expand article

The article right now is centered about the US situation - it's should be expanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.228.248 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical system, the US system and the British system

"In most democracies the electorate votes for a party. The party members develop an agenda, and nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda. The party is funded by a nominal membership fee, and contributions from the state for the cost of campaigning. The contribution may be in relation to the membership, the votes in the previous election, or similar. The party is not allowed to receive other contributions, a rule intended to prevent plutocracy."

Is it really the case that in most democracies, parties are not allowed to receive other contributions? At least in Norway, which I know best, parties can accept funding from other sources than those two mentioned in the text, including trade unions, business associations and wealthy persons. Do we have any sources stating that this is illegal in most democracies? --213.236.196.39 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete section. this is original research poorly done-- no sources are given and there are all these false statements (like--The British system is a mix of the US and the so-called "typical system"; or US system was "designed for a situation without parties" --simply false) . Or, in typical system the parties "nominate candidates to office based on how well they believe the candidate can carry out the agenda" -- as opposed to who has blocs of power inside the party? or "parties may be grass-roots organizations with a bottom-up decision-making process" (like who??); or try this: "The platform of the party is written by the winning candidate (in presidential elections; in other elections no platform is involved)." the platform is written separately and before the candidate is chosen (cf 1864 when it blew up for McClellan); yes there are platforms for state parties. This is all garbled: "The primary elections in the main parties is organized by the states, who also registers the party affiliation of the voters (this also makes it easier to gerrymander the congressional districts)." the primary has zero connection to the gerrymander. Some states register by party, others do not. The closed/open primary system is not described & independents are ignored. The reason the section is not sourced is that scholarly books don't make these mistaken claims. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Realigning election be merged into Party system. I think that the content in the Realigning election article can easily be explained in the context of Party system. Mitchumch (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

oppose. They are entirely distinct concepts, with realigning elections focused on voter behavior, and party systems focusing on the rules and behavior political parties. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Canadian Political Parties

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abigaildort (article contribs).

Government

Party system 41.184.4.152 (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

party system 103.81.93.187 (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Horrifying

Hello. This is not my area of expertise but it is horrifying to find an entire world of articles ("Third party system," "Fourth Party System," "Fifth Party System") without any basis. If I wasn't so busy I would nominate the whole kit and kaboodle for deletion. My suggestion is that the authors reconsider. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)