Talk:Multi-party system

message: I've rewritten it, and removed a lot of content that I found to be irrelevant, i.e. "this country has this type of system, while that country has another type..."  This concept is so general that there really isn't much to write. -Smack 08:35, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten 

message: I think this article is way too complicated and uses way too many big words for high school kids that are looking for information. It loses their interest from the begining. They don't want to have to look up every single word in an encyclopedia description in order to understand what one concept means.
: They should learn to read. – Kaihsu 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too complicated  

message: After a conflict on Single-party system, an informal mediator suggested that part of the problem could be unclear definitions of the concepts we use. I started a discussion about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-party_state#Clarification_of_concepts.3F
Please join in. --Regebro 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of concepts? 

message: Theres not only one type of multi-party system. Infact there are very few single party and two party systems anymore, everything is pretty much a multi-party system, but at the same time they are very different, and shouldn't be banded together.
Sartori's classification of party systems would be useful. He differentiates between different types of multi-party, I'll try and get around to adding it if I can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.248.102 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of multiparty system 

message: quote : "though in many cases there are two parties always larger than the others"
Parties in multi party systems have always evolved. There are clear examples of major parties in these countries listed who have gone from majorities to negligible over the years. And others that have grown very quickly in the course of just a few years. and the major parties of today have always been the small ones of yesterday. Saying things like what is noted above is plain propaganda. That quote forces people to believe there are always 2 unchanging major parties and the rest is just an afterthought. Musings like those have no place on these pages .. As such , Added a citation needed . 83.101.79.201 (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Graph of Belgian elections 2010 for example... It is a nice curve , which is usually the case. http://www.bpol.be/afbeeldingen/ander/GrafiekKamer13juni2010.jpg . More examples, Holland : http://www.zwarte-maan.nl/archief-actueel/afbeeldingen-archief/nieuwe_zetelverdelin_71626a-volks.jpg  . Germany , http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/swf/nhresultsxx/en/nhresultsde.jpg .. 83.101.79.46 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will remove that "2 parties larger than the others" comment. It is clearly based on popular myth .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.46 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in many cases there are two parties always larger than the others" 

message: Examples section was subject to vandalism/troll activity, I have undone the edit so it's back to normal.  ~CalAvery (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples were vandalised