Talk:Fourth Party System

message: 72 scholarly articles use this phrase; several of them are about Canada or Eastern Europe, or mean a political system with a fourth party. . Generally used? Not by my standards. Septentrionalis 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used in the textbooks: for example:
American Politics, Second Edition 
William Lasser, Clemson University  
http://www.college.hmco.com/polisci/lasser/am_pol/2e/students/ch_out09.html
Chapter Nine: Political Parties 
Basic Concepts The Framers and Political Parties 
The Idea of a Party System 
The American Party System 
Parties in the American Political System
Parties and the Party Systems in American History
The Idea of Realignment 
The First Party System 
The Second Party System 
The Third and Fourth Party Systems 
The Fifth (or New Deal) Party System
The Modern American Party System
Democrats and Republicans Today
Rjensen 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'salso 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 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I used JSTOR for the list and in fact over the years have read some of the articles. Perhaps people who wasnt to be experts on the topic and help edit this article should read some of these articles -- but start with the bibliography that is provided. (And yes, I did read and use all the books in the bibliography). Rjensen 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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.  Why anyone would want to remove it is baffling!  Rjensen 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :The overwhelming Republican victory in 1896 over William Jennings Bryan and his Democratic Party, repeated in 1900, restored business confidence, inaugurated a long epoch of prosperity, and swept away the issues and personalities of the Third Party System.
Really, now. There was a severe  contraction in 1902 and another in 1907; and does this count Bryan himself as a personality of the Third Party System or does it not? It's an exaggeration either way. The claims of historical systems should not be presented as fact, but as the opinions of their proponents.  Septentrionalis 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article focuses on the broad party lineups. Of course it is political history and does not cover economic, diplomatic, military etc topics. Bryan was a very minor figure in the 3rd party system. The idea of a party system is a construct created by scholars --like "Renaissance" "Great Awakening" "Napoleonic Era" "Jacksonian Democracy", "Ante Bellum Period", "Progressive Era", the "Frontier", and so on. Has anyone every alleged it represents a POV??? Rjensen 05:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of the five Party Systems is not (particularly) POV; this sentence, however, might have been written for Taft's election campaign. That's why the tag is on the section, not the article. Septentrionalis 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not true that there was a severe contraction in 1902.  There was one in 1907 that lasted about 9 months--pretty minor in a 30 year period between two REAL depressions. Politically 1907 did not have much impact--Taft was elected by a landslide and, more important, Bryan did not bring up the issue. The point is that minor recessions were not politically important in that era. Rjensen 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why have it at length in this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "In 1928 the stealth liberal Herbert Hoover became the last president of the Fourth Party System" sounds like POV to me.  Hoover was a technocratic statist; for this approach to governing to be called "liberal" is a post-1992 or perhaps even post-2008 usage.  It also sounds like an attempt to discredit Hoover by calling him a liberal, implying an anti-liberal POV.   I didn't change it, but thought I would point out my concern. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I'll fix it. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Don't the two article somehow overlap? Tazmaniacs 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a PoV fork of Progressive Era; of course they should be merged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4th party system outlasted the Progressive era, so it's different. It's been a standard concept in Political Science for 40 years, where the take a different approach from the way historians who look at Progressivism. For example, voting and election and congressional studies are done by pol scientists under the 4PS approach, and (in recent decades) not by historans.Rjensen 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been one of several ideas; but the assertion that it is standard is false. (The assertion that it is longer is also dubious; the political structure of the Progressive Era began falling apart with the extrusion of LaFollette in 1924, if not with the Bull Moose schism.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The United States has had three periods with distinct two-party systems. The first, the Jeffersonian Republican/Federalist party syste, ended with the Era of Good Feelings. The second, the Democratic/Whig system, was organized after the Era of Good Feelings and lasted until the early 1850s. The third, the Democratic/Republican system, was organized by the late 1850s and continues today, although we will frequently refer to this system as having perturbed into a three-party system (northern Democrats, southern Democrats, Republicans) by civil-rights issues that arose in the mid-twentieth century.(Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal:Congress : a political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: many government textbooks discuss 4th party system and it's included in the AP Government syllabus. It's mostly used to discuss presidential election; The fact that one author of a book on CONGRESS doesn't use the term is not a good reason for dropping term used for presidential elecgtions, a different issue. for example of use in standard textbook see American Politics, Second Edition / William Lasser, Clemson University  in ch 9; see  Also O'Connor and Sabato textbook 8th ed pp 419ff; Lowi textbook 8th ed pp 476ff Rjensen 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a curriculum guide; and there are many more books on political science and government which use Progressive Era (much of this list, for example)  There are, in fact, comparatively few papers on this schema; one of them is by Richard Jensen. There are enough that we should have articles on the subject; the metastasis of the idea through Wikipedia, however, seems to be the work of Rjensen, who inserted the paper into article text here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC
TWO ERRORS: Factually, Theodore Roosevelt was not elected President in 1901; he succeeded upon the assassination of McKinley in September of that year. Stylistically, the United States should never be referred to as "they." It's one nation. Doug O'Connell (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: good points and I fixed them. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Progressive Era]] 

message: The caption (both here and on the image page) on the map at the top of the page (:File:USPresResults1896 1932.png) says it covers 1896-1932 elections (excluding 1912). This would include nine elections, but the color scheme only accounts for eight elections. I'm guessing 1932 isn't actually included, because many of the states coded "Voted Republican 8 out of 8 elections" voted Democratic in 1932 (Oregon, Idaho, Minnesota, several others.) Could somebody else confirm that this is the case? Thanks--Malepheasant (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharp eye--I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in map caption and title? 

message: Part of the end of the fourth party system was the switch of African-American voters to the Democratic Party, particularly after the anaemic response of the federal government to the catastrophic flooding in the lower Mississippi River basin in 1927.  In particular it involved Herbert Hoover, first as a member of the Coolidge Administration then as President.  It was such a complete and rapid change that it came up in the media and elsewhere after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  One of the people I see quoted most often by political scientists on this is Al Sharpton.  In the South the flooding was worse than 1993 with some towns in Mississppi and Louisiana being under more than 33m/100 ft of water at one point.  The African-American vote had gone mainly to to the Republicans during Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction, the latter of which takes us up to the autumn of 1929, by which point the die was cast and in 1932 those votes were part of the FDR coalition to a large extent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.162.32 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  African-American partisan re-alignment 

message: Idaho voted Democrat in 1916. So why is it shown as 8 out of 8 times Republican in the first picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho Colour 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fourth Party System. 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/20060907112839/http://polisci.wisc.edu/~party/apsa2000green.pdf to http://polisci.wisc.edu/~party/apsa2000green.pdf
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) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just pointing out that the sentence "The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson marked a watershed as a new generation of Democrats without the baggage of slavery and secession" is missing a verb in the second part. What did the new generation of Democrats do? O0drogue0o (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd sentence construction in "Beginnings"