Talk:United States presidential nominating convention

message: This is a weird historical review.  The rioting in Chicago had little to do with the method of selecting delegates.  It had to do with anti-war protesting.  I suppose it was tangentially connected in that they were protesting against Humphrey, but there's little direct connection there.  The changes were made because the old process was felt to be undemocratic, not because it was disorderly. john k 19:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1968 Democratic Convention and rules changes

message: It might be helpful to those less-initiated in the political game (like myself) if we were to define the term "front loading" used in the Televising controversy section.  There is a "stub" (I think you call it?) for this term, "front loading," but the definition there is mostly in reference to government funding of military projects.
:The term "Front loading" is well-described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary (in the "Front-loading and compression" section of the "Criticism" chapter).  I'm not sure whether to link there, or to modify the stub, or a little of both.  
:Just a thought.  No time to continue now... Fagiolonero 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the term with clearer text. If someone updates front loading to reflect the political meaning, we can put the term back. Simon12 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A definition of the term "front loading" needed?

message: The section about the televising of conventions states that the first telecast was of the 1940 Republican convention. This seems like it must be a typo because television broadcasts didn't begin until about 1948. There's no citation, so I'm not sure whether the author meant to write "radio broadcast" or maybe mistyped the convention year.  Michaeltripp (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, 1940 was televised. Simon12 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Televising controversy" Section 

message: I have a couple of points to throw out for discussion.
# Is it worth making a separate table for Socialist, Prohibition and SLP conventions that actually nominated Presidential candidates? If so, what do we do with the Communist/Workers and Socialist Workers Party conventions (the SWP article gives no dates or places for conventions, just the nominees for each year). Were the 1948-68 States' Rights (Dixiecratic) parties coherent enough to list in a table of conventions?
# What, in general do we do about third parties and candidacies after 1960, which organize themselves for us in a far less orderly way than earlier ones? Several important candidacies seem to have emerged without being nominated by a convention, e.g. George Wallace (AIP) and Peace & Freedom (various) in 1968, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot (United We Stand) in 1992 and Ralph Nader in the last couple of elections. Some parties pride themselves on being federations of autonomous state parties and don't use national conventions to formalize a candidacy (or else are so split among the states that they have no clear single national nominee). What do we do with the sheer number of secondary and tertiary parties after 1964? (E.g., where do we fit in the American, Citizens', and Peace & Freedom Parties?) The point is not to dump all that complexity or uncertainty onto the lay reader, but to figure out what's the clearest, fairest, most accurate and most informative way of summarizing it. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about conventions, not candidates. If a third-party candidate didn't have a nominating convention (Perot, Anderson, etc), then I don't think any mention is needed at all. Simon12 (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best way to treat post-1960 parties? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential nominating convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015140620/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1001036.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1001036.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211231310/http://www.cfinst.org/legacy/eGuide/PartyConventions/ to http://www.cfinst.org/legacy/eGuide/PartyConventions/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The text provides no clarity on what a party system is, but there are headings sprinkled throughout the page to various party systems. That notion should be explained first. Or it may not even be relevant for this page. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describe party systems in general before using headings like first party system, second party system, etc