Talk:Second Party System

message: I recommend prosifying the patterns section. I'll get around to this in the future if I have time ^_^ — Deckiller 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is taken directly from a list and should be numbered, not prosified. The latter loses its impact. Rjensen 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosify

message: Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But hos prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.33.169 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Party Systems were introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. 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. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History  1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511  Fulltext in Project Muse.  Rjensen 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Richard Jensen has written several of the relatively small nuimber of papers on this subject. He is correct that it is mentioned in many political science textbooks; so are, other, more common periodizations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PMAnderson hasn't written any scholarly articles on the Second Party System or anything else, but he combs Wiki to try to challenge or erase fully documented scholarship from political science. Perhaps his goal seems to be to instruct people what's wrong with the scholars and textbooks that do cover the topic. That of course is illegal original research. If he has new ideas Wiki rules day he should publish them in the journals, then cite them. People interested in this topic should read "The Whig Challenge and the Second Party System" in the brand new 2008 edition of the major history textbook Mary Beth Norton et al. A People and a Nation, 8th ed.  For political science to cite a standard college textbook: "Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: 1. 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; 2. 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; 3. 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 4. 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 5. 1932-, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans." Robert C. Benedict, Matthew J. Burbank and Ronald J. Hrebenar, Political Parties, Interest Groups and Political Campaigns. Westview Press. 1999. Page 11."  By contrast Nowhere does PMAdnerson find any scholar who DENIES the existence of the second party system.  Rjensen 14:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I congratulate Rjensen on his red herring. I never said that the five systems did not exist, or were denied; if I thought so, I would be nominating this article for deletion. They are one of many constructs in American political science; but we should recognize, and do not, that they are a construct used by one, minority, school. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff

message: The first sentence of the second paragraph says that McCormick defined the "Party System." There are two McCormicks listed in the bibliography. Which particular McCormick did the defining? And what is his authority? Is he a historian, a political scientist, a FOX news anchor, an athlete, a gandy dancer, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.24.130 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: McCormicks: it's the father Richard P. who is the key historian here. (the son is Richard L.) The father was history professor and dean at Rutgers for decades; the son is now professor and president of Rutgers. Neither has much of a reputation as gandy dancer. Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCormick 

message: Why are the Anti-Masons listed as both a major and a minor party at the very beginning of the article???  Shouldn't they fall under only one or the other???  Calder 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Masons

message: The section "Patterns" is rather contradictory.
Consider, for example, the 6th bullet (the two parties were about equal in each region) and the 10th bullet (the Anti-Masonic party flourished in the states with a weak second party.) Um, if you have two equal parties, how can you possible have a weak second party? I mean, you can have both parties be weak, but not one or the other.
Can we get some clarification, please?
--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the parties were about equal in all REGIONS  but not necessarily equal in all STATES Rjensen (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Gianapp is mentioned in the section Democratization and reported in reference n. 24, but this has been done without some fundamental data: who is Gianapp? Which is the document mentioned and reported? Could someone give us more data about that? Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedro1972 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing data