Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:32, 1 May 2014

United States C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States is not a Democracy

Just a slight nit pick, the article mentions the United States being a democracy, but that is not correct. The United States is a Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.115.72 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition of 'democracy' implied by conversational English includes the specific definition of a 'Democratic Republic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and therefore should lean more formal than conversational. I think the references should be changed where appropriate to say democratic republic, or at the very least just republic. MQinator (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In formal language, the term "democracy" also encompasses "democratic republic." The attempt to remove the word "democracy" from descriptions of the American political system is nothing more than right-wing newspeak. Acsenray (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not newspeak. It's plain English / political terminology. The US is a democracy when discussing broadly (as against Chinese one-party rule or the Saudi kingdom;) it is specifically a democratic republic when identifying the form of its government (as against Athens or Rome.) So it's appropriate for some places in the article but not others. -LlywelynII (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The RS viewpoint is what Misplaced Pages gives: "Most scholars believe the United States is a democracy." says a leading pol sci textbook, Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, Jerry Goldman The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World(2008) Page 31. </ref>. A team of prominent historians says "Given that the United States is a democracy..." Meg Jacobs, William J. Novak, Julian E. Zelizer, eds. The democratic experiment: new directions in American political history (2003) p 277. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that no state could be a 'true' democracy if we worry too much about specifics. I can't think of a single place of significance where all citizens vote for all issues. And by this definition, the electoral college in the US is the antithesis of a democracy; Hard to call a country a 'true' democracy when someone getting the most votes isnt necessarily a win. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly non-necessary sentence

Please forgive my level of comprehension but I really couldn't get hold of what the sentence "The United States is one of the world's developed democracies where third parties have the least political influence." wants to imply and what purpose it serves considering the flow of the article. I hesitantly guess there was a "one of the world's most developed democracies" in between there and despite the sentence being biased that way, probably it had a point then. I guess somebody gotta clarify this sentence. Cheers. --Stultiwikia 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to better reflect the content below. Next question: Do we have an adequate reference for this sentence: "In the absence of multi-seat congressional districts, proportional representation is impossible and third parties cannot thrive."? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading?

Winner-Take-All Politics (book) Further reading.

• Book Review: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer; American Politics and the Second Gilded Age by Robert C. Lieberman (Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Columbia University) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2011; excerpt ...

  Hacker and Pierson refreshingly break free from the conceit that skyrocketing inequality is a natural consequence of market forces and argue instead that it is the result of public policies that have concentrated and amplified the effects of the economic transformation and directed its gains exclusively toward the wealthy. Since the late 1970s, a number of important policy changes have tilted the economic playing field toward the rich. Congress has cut tax rates on high incomes repeatedly and has relaxed the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, resulting in windfall profits for the wealthiest Americans.

See Reagan Administration and Bush tax cuts, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial market, Glass-Steagall Act, Conservatism in the United States, Great Depression in the United States and Late-2000s financial crisis, Tea Party movement and Occupy movement in the United States (Occupy Wall Street and Occupy movement), ...

Also see Inside Job (film), Plutocracy and Wealth 99.181.130.94 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage section needs major revision

The suffrage movement did not suddenly arise because black men could vote. It arose decades before that, beginning with the original conference at Seneca Falls in 1848, chaired by none other than Frederick Douglas. The push for female suffrage was put on hold during the Civil War, but when the 13th and 14th Amendments were being discussed, and Douglas made it clear he would not support extending suffrage to women. Susan B Anthony became infuriated, was very rude, and walked out to found a separate organization to push exclusively for female suffrage.

As its written now, the article almost reads that women got jealous, so they wanted the vote too.

Not only NPOV, but bad history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.94 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The UK DOES directly elect their members of parliament; they do not vote for a party

This article formally made a difference between the US and the UK, in that in the US, people vote for a specific person for congress, as opposed to a party. By implication, it said that in the UK people vote for a party.

This is not true. Voters in the UK vote for individual members of parliament. This person may be a member of a party, but may also not, and may change parties during their term of office, without having to submit to another election.

I've changed the article to refer to "some other parliamentary systems."

--Deregnaucourt (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Misplaced Pages's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Misplaced Pages noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Misplaced Pages Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Shift in Republican/Democrat political position

Going to raise an "unthinkable" idea here, but shouldn't there be a mention of the rightwards shift in policy of both major political parties? In fact, going further, shouldn't there be a mention of how the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has grown, and how moderate Republicans have been marginalized in the party? 86.180.122.221 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any relevant fact that has been published in a reliable source may be added to the article. How the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has grown, and how moderate Republicans have been marginalized in the party would seem to supported by numerous sources. However, they do need to be cited. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we really about to take the words that liberal Democrats use when characterizing members of the Tea Party movement and call them fact? That term is only used by Democrats to demean their conservative Republican opposition. Describing the Tea Party and conservative factions of the Republican Party as the "extreme right wing" is tantamount to calling them far-right, in the same camp as the Nazis and the Fascists, this is simply not true. While Hitler and Mussolini deprived people of their civil rights, expanded the government to the point that it controlled everything, and completely disregarded their nation's constitutions, the Tea party advocates for more protection of civil rights, a more limited government, and a strict interpretation of the constitution. Now granted there are extremists in the Republican Party, but there to are also extremist elements in Democratic Party as well. I would agree that the Tea Party is on the right-wing end of the political spectrum, but by no means are they "extreme," and again this term is only used by one party and those who activley oppose the Tea Party, so clearly they would have a biased and would want to use such a term to demean their opponents. Now I would agree that the right-wing of the Republican Party has grown and it is worthy of mention, but it should be portrayed NEUTRALLY. In I agree addition moderate Republicans have been marginalized to some extent simply because their policies and proposals are know longer popular with the Republican Party's core voters.

With regards to the alleged "rightwards shift in policy by both major parties" I simply disagree, except for the Republican Party, while the Democratic Party remains relatively unchanged, for instance President Obama's re-election campaign was as far left as his first campaign. I believe that in comparison to 2008 government policy has shifted rightwards, but only because the Republicans now control the House of Representatives, so whenever the Republicans are elected to the White House and take the Senate, it will shift rightwards again, then swing leftwards when the Democrats regain power. But again with regards to a shift to right in policy, Republicans yes, Democrats no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.4.13 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Political System of the United States.svg and File:Politisches System der Vereinigten Staaten.svg

• English version
• German version

Hey =)

Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The main talk is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics (but I don't know if somebody recognizes it there ;)

• re: File:Political System of the United States.svg:

1. The electoral college should come from the states, not directly from the people.
2. The Senate is elected every 6 not 2 years. Supreme Court should be level with the President & Congress.
3. What does '§' mean?
4. President does not usually appoint or control the Vice President.
5. State courts are missing.
6. Congress does not appoint or control the Supreme Court, except to approve the President's appointment.
7. The Senate does not appoint or control the Cabinet or Armed Forces, except to approve the President's appointment.
8. The state levels do NOT vary at all from state-to-state.—GoldRingChip 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! =)

1. Do you mean that the dotted line showing the state- and federal level should surround the Electoral College, too?
2. Oh, I'll correct that.
3. "§" means legislation/laws (I thought that would be self-explanatory..). With what would you replace it?
4. Ok, should I connect the Vice President with the electoral college instead?
5. I'll add them (but these have to be connected with the state legislature not with the people, right?)
6. Shall I delete the lines, or use another color to indicate the approval?
7. See 6
8. Uhm, ok, I could delete that indication, but really the same they are not, too, are they?

Greetings — Allrounder (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version (before - after). — Allrounder (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• You're learning is that government is not so simple that it breaks down in pictograms.

1. In some (but not all) states, voters elect courts
2. What do the different shapes mean?
3. What does "Executive Office" mean?
4. Supreme Court doesn't veto legislation; it interprets all laws and works out the conflicts among regulations, practices, legislation, and constitution.
5. VP is not part of Congress, just a Senate tie-breaker. Make VP the bottom part of the Prez's triangle with an arrow going over to the Senate.
6. Remove § from legislation. Other laws have sections, too.
7. Vetos are "overridden" not "overwritten."
   • And Overrides are by two-thirds vote (omit majority) in "both" not "each" house.
8. Why not put President ABOVE other Executive boxes?
9. What does "The state levels can vary from state to state" mean? —GoldRingChip 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like I said: An organigram doesn't necessarily have to show every detail of a political system. It explains the main processes in the government, so you do can almost break it down in a pictogram (compare it eg with the current one used in the German article: File:Politisches System der USA.svg - this graphic is bad)

1. Right - that's why it's indicated: "The state levels can vary from state to state"
2. different shapes? Triangle means head of something (a person), rectangle stands for an organ and a rounded rectangle means legislation.
3. Executive Office of the President of the United States
4. But it can veto laws - more is not indicated
5. In this way it wouldn't be clear that he is chairman of the Senate. And regarding to this position you do can say he is part of the Congress though.
6. § is (at least in Europe) a common sign for legislation - I really don't understand, how you can confuse it... See eg the political organigram of Germany
7. Ok I'll change that (might be because I'm not a native speaker..)
8. because than the connections would fail. But he is slightly above the other executive bodys though.
9. see eg No. 1 (not every state is structured in the same way) — Allrounder (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1. The Supreme Court cannot veto laws.
2. § is not a common sign for legislation in the U.S.. It's the common sign for "section" which is often used with legislation, but not more than that.—GoldRingChip 02:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1. but? Shall I add "repeal" to the description?
2. Ok, here in Europe/Germany it's pretty clear.. I'll change that. — Allrounder (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't all this discussion relevant to Government of the United States, rather than Politics of the United States? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, you're right. Shall I move it there? — Allrounder (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Are there any further changes to do or is it ok now? (after I'll have changed the suggestions you made above)

New version: before - after - better? — Allrounder (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• No. VP isn't in Congress. State legislatures do not appoint State courts; Supreme Court does not repeal laws ("repeal" has a legal meaning which is not what happens here); not all people 18+ are enfranchised; the blue line should be labelled "appoints or controls" (because it's not "and")—GoldRingChip 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• The VP is filled with another color (blue stands for the executive branch), so you can clearly see that he's not part of the legislative. That as the chairman of the Senate he is in some way part of the Congress you can't deny though. If I place him above the Congress-rectangle, it would seem like he's the head of the whole Congress. If I place him beside the Congress you don't see his funktion as the chairman of the Senate. I think in the current way, everybody understands the relation of the bodies..
• State legislatures do not appoint State courts. In most of the states they do (aren't they?) - that there are deviations is indicated in the subscript. You wanted me to add the state judiciary - if you want to I surely can remove this box, so there are no misunderstandings.
• Ok, how do you call it if not "repeal"?
• Shall I add "normally 18 or more"?
• Ok, I'll change it to "or". — Allrounder (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Don't be too strict with the graphic: an organigram doesn't want to replace an whloe article - it only shows the main factors in a political system and IMO the pictogram does this very fine. Btw: the current image used in the German article (File:Politisches System der USA.svg) is much worse - that's why I made this image originally..

 Done. Satisfied? — Allrounder (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Health by political preference

Copied from Talk:United States. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the graphics at correct representations of ? EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the lamer cherry-picked political talking points you've tried to insert into the article (unless you're not proposing that, and are just shooting the breeze). First, it's not by "political preference", but state. A breakdown of health (or obesity, or many other metrics) by political affiliation would look a lot different. The leftist study authors assign political labels to the states. They claim that liberal states are "healthier" (according to subjective self reporting and average sick days taken) and assume this is because those state governments spend more money than "conservative" states. The conclusion's absurdity is illustrated by a glance at your liberal blog's own pictures, which show a huge spread among "conservative" states, with ones like Utah and Wyoming among the healthiest in the country. Going by your blog and the portion of the study I bothered to read, they apparently gave no consideration to variables like race (huge metric disparities within every state, but very different racial population ratios in different states, especially between New England and the Deep South), immigration status, or cultural aspects like....say...regional diet (minor details, I know). The "liberal" states only consist of New England and a couple of others, including New Mexico, which, geographically separated and ethnically different from the other liberal states, ranks much lower. I was amused to see states like Alaska and the Dakotas, which rank high in health, classified as "moderate". I was also amused to see states like California, which ranks relatively low, labeled "moderate". Nothing much to see here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is already corroborated, and the source starts with a literature review. The review in the popular science press by a noted authority in the field was professionally edited by a staff with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The treatise states that it is preliminary only and that its limitations mean that it is not definitive in any way at this point. By the time we add all the "limitations" specified, I suspect it is of exceedingly limited utility here. The next part is that the MotherJones graphics elide the other likely bases for people's view of their own health -- such as climate, unemployment etc. NM and AZ are quite different politically, similar climatologically, and similar in view of health (in fact AZ outranks NM on that basis). On a statistically significant basis for assertion of any single reason for views of health, it fails. It is of anecdotal value only, and epidemiologists tend not to try making "correlation equals causation" arguments in any event. Were I to hazard a guess, the healthiest states all have relatively high hospital availability density (and doctor availability density) (that is percentage of population within 15 minutes of a hospital, and 15 minutes of a doctor). CDC has lots of stats onthat sort of stuff. Collect (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Which specific passage in the text are you referring to, in relation to the literature review WP:SECONDARY introduction, and which example CDC statistics do you have? EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Measurement of oligarchy

@Collect: re what is your specific objection to the research depicted in the charts? EllenCT (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The material appears to be controversial and thus requires an actual consensus for inclusion at this point. Did you fail to see anyone demurring about such additions to multiple articles? Collect (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect is right. The EllenCT text distorts the scholarly findings by relying on polemical commentary and especially by omitting the caveats, such as Cassidy, who says: The evidence that Gilens and Page present needs careful intepretation. For example, the opinion surveys they rely on suggest that, on many issues, people of different incomes share similar opinions. To quote the paper: “Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government.” This does get reflected in policy outcomes. Proposals that are supported up and down the income spectrum have a better chance of being enacted than policies that do not have such support. To that extent, democracy is working. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In my view, I see validity from the perspectives of EllenCT, Collect, and Rjensen, that these views are worthwhile and deserve inclusion. (Personally, my POV is that I see America moving towards oligarchy yet at the same time that democracy is still working, that elites have powerful political clout yet at the same time, systems continue to function.) So, my sense is it is mostly a matter of seeking the right tone and balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground, but when major parties collude intentionally through gerrymandering and less intentionally through astroturf propaganda, sometimes the popular and reliable source viewpoint of 1+1=2 is obscured by the political parties' squabbles over whether 1+1=3 or 1+1=4 is more accurate. The sources corroborate and the secondary sources agree. EllenCT (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears you are using what you "know to be the truth" and not recognizing that editors are constrained by policy not to do that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede section

My sense is the lede section focuses too much on the structure of US government (branches, federal arrangement, etc) but does not adequately reflect the main summary ideas about this subject, which is obviously Politics of the United States. Clearly information about the US government structure is relevant, but I was thinking the main ideas which should be covered in the lede are as follows (please feel free to add to this list or amend it.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• adversarial nature -- basic idea being how politics is based on ideas competing in a (hopefully) rational way, with the best ideas winning out, debating, arguing point-counterpoint. Politics is not done by fighting, or warfare, or witchcraft, but rather by reasoned argument competing with reasoned argument. In my view this principle undergirds much of US politics -- in elections, court cases, votes on a particular bill in Congress, competing lobbies, etc, and it should be reflected in the lede.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• two political parties -- in my view, this is important to understanding US politics; it is different from a multiparty system. US politics tends to gravitate towards these two "broad tent" parties, excludes outliers, third party candidates rarely if ever win seats, with good aspects of this (promotes stability) and bad (stifles dissenting views, etc). I feel there should be a line or two about each party, the general tendencies (Republican, pro-business, Democrat, pro-labor), something basic, not too detailed, since these parties change slightly over time in what they are about. Big idea: neither party dominates the nation for excessively long periods, that is, there is a gradual changing of which party is in control, as generations pass, from right to left, back again, every 30 to 50 years or so; generally this alternation is a good thing (in my view).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• politics is greatly affected by the structure of government. Federal structure, Constitution (an entrenching document -- specifies rules; can itself be amended; states procedures for elections for president, etc), layers of government (federal, state, local). Branches checking each other. (this information is currently in lede but my sense is that it is exaggerated as I said).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• politics is a specialized activity. It has its own sphere; it is like a type of job or career with its own full-time professionals and rules, not unlike academia, or business, or medicine, in that it has its own procedures, pathways, jargon, and it is different substantially from other spheres. Political decisions exert influence on other spheres, obviously; but generally, related to this idea, is the idea that most people do not participate in the political sphere, even tangentially; only about half vote every four years, and that's about it, but the system still is a system, things get done, etc. This is in contrast with a political system such as ancient Athens, when all adult male property-owning citizens participated in government, voted, served on juries, fought in wars. Citizenship today is mostly a passive activity, a legal marker, a status of belonging, not an active relation with the state, expressed by duties, or any kind of commitment to other citizens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• US political traditions largely came from Britain, with some influence from France (eg principle of popular sovereignty; Louisiana legal system from France) and French intellectuals (Montesquieu, Voltaire); the jury system can be traced back from Britain, to Germanic tribes, to ancient Athens. Basic idea: US politics is steeped in the Western tradition. Politics continues to evolve; over course of US history, big underlying trends include (1) expansion of persons considered citizens (propertied white men only => all men => all women => adults (21 yrs old requirement => 18 yrs old requirement) (2) specialization of politics, part of the ever-increasing complexity of the US with many systems and sub-systems (3) detachment of most people from politics (4) growth of the legal sense of citizenship, increasing sense of rights, that is, in US history, the courts and the idea of rights protect people from adverse influence from political decisions (ie, slavery outlawed, workers' rights to fair treatment via court cases).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• politicking requires money -- lots of it, it is the mother's milk of politics, whether paying for campaign advertisements, aligning coalitions, paying for bumper stickers. As a rough rule of thumb, the side with the most $$ wins. It is how powerful lobbies joust for power at every level of government.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My sense is the lede section might be rewritten somewhat along these lines, but I am wondering what others here think, or if there are any important overall things that should be included.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles