Talk:Bipartisanship

message: Truly I don't think it's right for different people who believe in two different things to join together, 
because it will cause more violence in the world. It's really a question to have bipartisan system in order to serve people better. second, every 2 years every house reps,6 years senator also almost every year local gov official. No time, concentrated effort for the citizen of the u.s.a.what about the presidential election? One of the most important independent spirits is equality. The current voting system is not adequate to reflect all the voter's rights.
Removed the reference to Canada as we currently have three political parties - Conservative, Liberal and NDP (Center, Left and Lefter). Urbanriot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Tagging NPOV.  This article has a distinct liberal slant (one which I happen to agree with, but nonetheless a slant).  76.201.147.205 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I'm removing the "US-centric" tag for this reason: bipartisanship applies to situations where there are two-party systems; and there are few two-party systems around the world, and the US is one of the few examples (see Two party system. So, it seems reasonable to focus on the US and US politics when talking about bipartisanship; this issue doesn't play out to the same extent in multiparty systems. So, to criticize this article as being "US focused" doesn't make sense; it would be like tagging the article "Mississippi River" with a similar tag because there were too many mentions of the US. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011
:Two party system has been expanded since 2011, with many examples of other two-party systems around the world. It can be expanded further, as can this article, so I'm restoring the tag. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: US''' text'''-centric-issue

message: I would like to know whether or not bipartisanship (or related words, as bipartisan) actually and more than sporadically is used by notable sources for references to phenomena outside the US. ( I'm not asking whether it should be used, but whether it is used.)  I see the term nonpartisan (or equivalent terms in e.g. Swedish) now and then, but bipartisan only in US political contexts. If it is chiefly used with references to US contexts, then I think this should be mentioned in the lead.
I also would like to know to what extent it is used as a synonym to or replacing nonpartisan(ship) in US use.  All the examples given in the article concern political activity, where Democrats and Republicans in their rôle as politicians have taken an essential part.  On the other hand, I sometimes see other use elsewhere, as in the article Heterodox Academy, which starts
::Heterodox Academy is a bipartisan advocacy group of professors which was founded in 2015 to counteract narrowing of viewpoints on college campuses..
Reading on, this indeed seems not to be an initiative by politicians; and I strongly suspect that it also involves professors and other 'academicians' who do not primarily consider themselves as either Democrats or Republicans.  I fully agree with calling e.g. Freedom House bipartisan, but if the section Bipartisanship#Usage is correct and reasonably exhaustive, then probably some other term should be better for the Heterodox Academy. JoergenB (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How and where is the term used? 

message: This article does a poor job of fleshing out the various criticisms of bipartisanship that have popped up ion recent years, at least with regard to the American political system. Here are some additional criticisms that have been expressed in by notable individuals in the past (about the U.S. bipartisanship as a concept)  that should be added to  the article (appropriately sourced of course):
* While Bipartisanship may be an ideal goal, it's not a realistic one, given certain current political realities (at least in the U.S.; see the other criticisms below for why). As such, politicians should not waste too much energy on it.
* True bipartisanship should mean that both sides equally compromise and work together on an issue but in reality too heavy focus on bipartisanship by one politician or political party ends allowing the other party to take advantage of the situation and secure a deal that is heavily tilted in their favor, while falsely claiming true bipartisanship. 
* Despite voters expressing support for bipartisanship in concept, when it actually comes time to vote, they rarely punish strictly/mostly partisan politicians. Thus why should you settle for a compromise of there is a no political consequences if go home empty handed. Also, it's argued that the number of voters favoring a middle ground/moderate/compromise position on many issue has shrunk in recent decades meaning that one has more to loose compromising too much too often. Part of this has to deal with the fact that fewer districts in the U.S. competitive/swing districts compared with the past, thus there are much fewer politicians who need to worry about bipartisanship given there is less chance of swing voters swinging the election against them for lack of bipartisanship or a promise of greater bipartisanship by their opponent (non-swing voters seem to favor strong adherence to certain key ideological/pet issues more then bipartisanship/moderation) and see compromise on those issue being just as bad as given in completely.  
* Bipartisanship assumes that politicians getting things done is a good thing even when it involves significant compromise. Libertarian and other anti-big government types would argue that doing nothing may be better in such cases where you can't get what you really want then a compromise that involves given too much in terms of your principles/beliefs away to your opponents just to say the accomplished something. 
* The criticisms of concept of bipartisanship is that it makes certain assumptions similar to those made in praise of moderate positions and centrism (centrism as the assumed ideal is something of which a number of critics have taken issue with). 
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional criticisms of bipartisanship missing from article   

message: Curious how this term seems to reappear in headlines when the congress would like the public to believe there to be a beneficial compromise between parties when, in truth, it seems, both have made little progress for public good but rallied together for corporate interests. 
There is the 'Bipartisan Policy Center'  (biparticanpolicy.org) which seems to highlight many neoliberal and neoconservative battle buddies who now join hands to coordinate efforts against the American people's efforts to achieve medical care and clean energy.  This site is very proud to list many government 'servants' who are now lobbyist.  It shows photos of flag waving, throws out words like 'PATRIOT'  and lists career opportunities (currently available) such as 'Major Gifts Manager'.  As serendipitous that this might seem to some, it strikes this non-Washington, non-media, average American as exactly why most of us who lead such lives have distrust and dislike for people 'like that'. 
This article is biased. It has a strong corporate right lean. I have little doubt it was sourced from exactly the same sources which, according to Pew, have also moved Americans to Right- add independent media has been squashed or eliminated- which quiets any dissent. 
Noah Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' might provide a useful tool. QuietChickenChaser (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition & Practice