Talk:Lists of political parties

message: I completed the Index of political parties project, so now I am able to include in this list an overview of the national parties in the listed countries. The new intro explains which parties are included.  - Electionworld 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This party was not forgotten, but is very small and does not fulfill the criteria for listing in this list.Electionworld 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive list 

message: Should political alliances between parties (such as the Concertación or Alliance for Sweden) also be included on this page? Both Concertación and the opposition Alliance for Chile are included in the List of political parties in Chile page but not on Chile's section on this page. I have added Alliance for Sweden on the Sweden section, but do say if it is wrong to put it there. Tamino 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliances? 

message: I filled this page with the parties in october last year. It helped to get a comprehensive set of articles on political parties. But to update it frequently remains very much work. Therefore I reverted the page to the version that only included links to list of parties by country. It is less work to keep the lists updated in this way. I hope you can agree. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds very sensible. Tamino 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much work

message: I agree that a list of parties for each country is an overkill for this page. However, I am wondering if it would not be good to include the type of political party composition (Multi-party, Two-party, Dominant-party, Single-party, No-party). This classification seems to be included on the individual country pages (e.g. China and Sweden), and a partial list is provided on Two-party_system (which I think is not the best place for this listing).
Including this information would add some self-contained content to this page, instead of it serving only as an index (not that an index is not important), and I believe that it should not be that hard to update. While parties come and go, countries do not change between these systems so easily.
Any thoughts on whether this would be a good or a bad idea?
Torfason 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about the type of party system 

message: I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say this has been replaced by . Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template usable on articles 

message: I feel that the US should be listed as multi-party. It is legally a multi-party system, so it should be listed as such. Obviously two parties are much more powerful than the others, but many other parties hold positions at the local and state levels. There's a note to say that there are multiple parties, but listing it as a two party system is misleading. I changed the US to a multi-party system but left the note to explain that two are dominant. I'm not completely sure on the rules here, so if I did something improper by changing it before a consensus is reached please just revert it. I also changed the US Virgin Islands to multi-party, as the article says there are three. --SodiumBenzoate 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this does not concern the legal situation but the real situation. There are no countries that are legally bipartisan. If two parties divide nearly all political posts, are the only ones that hold seats in both houses of parliament and are the only ones to stand a chance at presidential elections, you're two party. (See for instance Arend Lijphart Patterns of Democracy 1999 Yale University Press, p.77). I have reverted this edit. C mon 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US two party? 

message: The article says it is multi-party, with so many major parties no single party can gain power without a coalition. Why, then, is it listed as "dominant party"? --SodiumBenzoate 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because out of the 167 seats 114 are held by Fifth Republic Movement after the 2005 elections. In the previous elections it held 91 seats. This means that this party dominates parliament. I have reverted this edit. C mon 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a "dominant party" in this list.  Just because a party wins an overwhelming majority of seats at one (or two) elections does not make it a "dominant party", and the system would still be described as "multi-party".  Such a situation also applies in the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party has won an overwhelming majority of seats since 1997 (three elections), but the system is still clearly "multi-party".   A "dominant party" system is one where the ruling party can be expected to win every election, largely because other parties are denied full access to the media, are not allowed to operate freely, or are forced into subordinate coalitions.  That is clearly not the case in Venezuela, and the entry should be returned to the "multi-party" category. Skinsmoke 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I base my definition of dominant party on external sources like Alan Ware's standard work Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford, 1996) p.162 where he defines dominant party system as "More than one 'relevant' party but only one party controls the legislature" and Arend Lijphart Patterns of Democracy (Yale; 1999) p.67 where he gives several examples of dominant party systems: "Examples of the former are pre-1990 Italy with its dominant Christian Democratic party and the three Scandinivian countries with strong Socialist parties". They both point a numerical condition or the way power is organized within the parliament. If one party is very large compared to the other and is thus able to control the legislature it is a dominant party system. I think Venezuela fits into this category very well. C mon 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No Venezuela doesn't fit this into this category at all well.  The point about pre-1990 Italy was that the Christian Democrats had held power for 45 years.  Similarly, in Scandinavia, the Socialist parties had won the overwhelming majority of elections over a period of 50 or 60 years.  In Venezuela, the ruling party scored a landslide victory in a single election.  That could easily be reversed at the next election (as has happened, for instance, in Canada.  For it to become a dominant party system, it would have to score similar crushing victories in a series of elections over a period of time. Skinsmoke 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Skinsmoke on this; apart from that, none of the Scandinavian countries feature a dominant party system as of 2006, incidentally. —Nightstallion (?) 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela 

message: In case I run out time, here is an archive of the old alphabetical order. I know we can always look at the older edits, but this might be useful to copy and paste tables etc. Talk:List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme/Archive of alphabetical list.--Cerejota 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of alphabetical order 

message: I created this template to simplify the creation of the (sub)regional pages. It wikiformats the page title, and adds the  template in a short phrase. I am using it in all the pages. --Cerejota 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pol-party-region-intro template 

message: I severly underestimated the time needed for this task, and have been able to do only two pages. However I was able to create a method and format that should speed up the process, along with some formating standard (maybe I should have started a project!!!).
This is the method  (Look here for a model page):
# Click on a red link on the page: this would create the new page
# Move to rename the page to the following format "List of political parties in REGION-NAME by country". This is to have a built in redirect from the shorter name to a more correct title.
# Edit resulting page.
#Put ,  and ==List of countries==, ==References==, references tag, and Category:Lists of political parties by United Nations geoscheme|REGION-NAME (wikified of course!!!) .
# Save.
#Copy the table header from and existing page after the ==List of countries== but before the <noinclude>==References==</noninclude>.
#Save.
# In separate tab or window open corresponding page for geoscheme region, it should have a list of the countries.
# Go to the talk subpage above and edit to reveal source of coresponding table item.
# Copy table item into appropiate page.
# Save and put country name into summary box.
# When finished with page remove .
# Repeat with next region.
Please be careful to not lose any countries.
Special pages in the original by country list (European Union, etc), I think should be a separate page like "Parties in supra-national entities" or some such. In the mean time I suggest we put them as a separate item on this page under a heading TBD.
Thanks!!!
--Cerejota 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of time!!! 

message: The two anon IPs are form the Netherlands, from which User:Electionworld is, and hence they are both highly suspect as meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets because of their edit behavior, and the denials on the part of Electionworld of them being his actions. I suggest the that Electionworld refrain from this behaivior in the future: we all can discuss and come to agreement without the need for such tactics.--Cerejota 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which 2 anon IPs. there was only one involved, 84.62.25.35, a German IP (Bochum). The one listed below that was Swedish. FYI: The Netherlands and Germany are not the same. Electionworld Talk? 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acording to what source? Arin Whois said "NL" as country code for both IPs! Arin whois. --Cerejota 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Torfason for your reaction. I've checked the IP at DNSSTUFF.com which brings it to Germany. The problem I have with Cerejota in the moment that he is doubting my good faith, I don't like that. It was not my anon IP, I was in good faith and we if we doubt good faith, we should have good reasons.Electionworld Talk? 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having cooled, I apologize if I gave you that impression. However, you appeared to violate WP:OWN, and even referred to the "Geoscheme" as if I owned it. Not very productive.
--Cerejota 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected Sockpuppets/Meatpuppets

message: The article lists Canada as having a two-party system. True, only the Liberals and the Tories have ever led governments, but I think that to call Canada a two-party system seriously undervalues the influence of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in the current political situation. Consistently since the early 1900s, at least three parties have held numerous seats in the Canadian House of Commons - I think that, by any reasonable definition, that qualifies as a multi-party system. ObeliskBJMtalk 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada?

message: Russia should be listed as dominant party, because there is virtually no need for inter-party coalitions, and United Russia has been dominating the political system for a while now: not to mention predictions for the next election, which further entrench United Russia as a dominant party. --The Palatine 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia - dominant party

message: When the dust settles from Malaysia's 2008 election, it may be that its status on this list can change from 'dominant' to 'multi' party.  Please keep an eye on this. Earthlyreason (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysia - still 'dominant party'? 

message: It is very nice whoever listed Slovakia as ´dominant party´ since SMER is the dominant party over there - however I would recommend to change it back, since it could make an international incident. Or at least ´not really truthful information´. Slovakia, as a member of EU is a democracy, nevertheless party SMER - SD is  dominant party, it may change in next elections though. Cunikm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia 

message: I think the ruling party or coalition should be mentioned for each country in List of political parties by country. I don't find it anywhere else in Wikipedia; List of current heads of state and government just tell names, but names tell little about the nature of the government. 
For example, it could look like:
Country</b>Country name links to list of political parties	Country</b>Country name links to list of political parties	Type of ruling party or coalition	Type of ruling party or coalition	Type of ruling party or coalition	Type of ruling party or coalition	Ruling party or coalition                                                              	Election
Country</b>Country name links to list of political parties	Country</b>Country name links to list of political parties	Multi party                      	Two party                        	Dominant party                   	Single party                     	Ruling party or coalition                                                              	Election
                                                          	Denmark                                                   	•                                	                                 	                                 	                                 	Liberals, Conservative People's Party, parliamentary support from Danish People's Party	2007 election
Reference:
(No party) could rather be noted in the ruling party box in such cases.
It might take some time before the list is reasonably complete. Besides, as with List of current heads of state and government, it will need frequent update - the election year will indicate when it might be time to do so. Still I'm sure it will be worth the effort. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the proposed idea to the article. It's still very incomplete, but I'm sure that, in time, it will be filled, as well as updated, as new elections are carried out. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Adding ruling party