This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political party strength in U.S. states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the Nebraska legislature is formally "nonpartisan", nearly all its members are either Democrats or Republicans and the parties endorse candidates for the legislature. For the purposes of party strength, I believe it is important to include these numbers. I propose to revert to the previous version of the table. Acsenray 17:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The benefit of using a nominal standard (i.e., going by what they call themselves instead of making a judgement call as to what you/I/someone else thinks they actually are) is that it lends a finality and objectivity to the stats. If we decide to count members of a nonpartisan legislature as partisans, then someone could argue that since state Sen. So-and-So is a Zell Miller-like Democrat who always votes with Republicans, we should count him as a Republican on the chart. Having abandoned the nominal standard, it would be hard to argue against this logic.
Secondly, a nonpartisan legislature is part of Nebraska's constitution. It's a real part of the law, with real effects on government. There are Democrats who have held committee chairmanships, which wouldn't have happened if Nebraska's legislature were partisan. Someone consulting the chart would come away misinformed, which is a bad standard.
Suggested compromise: Revert the stats to reflect nonpartisan status, but leave in the disclaimer above. Schmeitgeist 16:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still disagree. This is an article on political party strength. In this context, it doesn't make sense to pretend that the individuals don't belong to a particular party. And it's not a matter of giving someone an arbitrary label or refusing to call them what they call themselves. These people are members of a party and they are endorsed by a party. They are nominally members of a party; I'm not pasting that label on them arbitrarily. When they run for other state and local offices, they keep their party labels; when they run for federal offices, they keep their party labels. Why pretend that this is not happening? The fact that the legislature works in a different way than other legislatures is interesting but more appropriate for a discussion of the Nebraska legislature itself, not in an article on political party strength.
The Nebraska Republican Party's Web site [1] claims the following senators as Republicans -- Aguilar, Baker, Brashear, Bromm, Burling, Byars, Combs, Cudaback, Cunningham, Erdman, Foley, Friend, Hudkins, Jensen, Johnson, Jones, Kremer, Louden, Maxwell, McDonald, Mines, Mossey, Pedersen, Pederson, Price, Quandahl, Redfield, Schrock, Smith, Stuhr, Stuthman, Tyson Vrtiska, and Wehrbein. A telephone call to the Nebraska Democratic Party and they claim the following districts' senators as members of their party -- 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 27th, 28th, 45th, and 46th. Are they violating the Nebraska constitution by doing so? The fact is that these officials are members of a party and I don't see how removing the numbers from the table makes readers more informed.
Why should someone be misinformed? Since the beginning, the introductory material to the table has included the statement that the Nebraska legislature is official nonpartisan. This table says nothing about constitutional structure, committee organization, or leadership. It simply gives the raw numbers of elected officials by party. Why hide this information? (I'd even be willing to note "nonpartisan" in the table itself so long as the breakdown is still there.) Just presenting the raw numbers doesn't imply anything incorrect about the structure of Nebraska government. By linking to the appropriate article on the legislature, it should suffice to inform. Acsenray 19:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article says
the following 22 states (mostly in the South and the Midwest) do not provide for party preferences in voter registration: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
and then it says
The partisan breakdown "demographics" provided in the following table are obtained from that state's party registration figures (from late 2010 whenever possible) where indicated.
I am confused. If 22 states do not provide for party preferences in voter registration, then where did the figures for party registration for those 22 states come from? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
They come from Political Machine 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the figures for the 22 states that don't have registration-by-party are from 2008 exit poll data. I've been meaning to try to track those figures down and source them, but haven't gotten to it yet. IJBall (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The partisan split in Massachusetts voter registration shows that Dem/Rep combined only add up to about 42% of registered voters. State registration records show about 56% are registered independent/unenrolled. Since this is an actual majority, should it be represented somehow? Dan (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Given Southerners were always conservative & utterly opposed most civil rights and voting rights, which party they associated with in given decades. The south opposed the party of Lincoln as too liberal, and sided with the Democratic Party from 1865 on. The immigration waves for the next 100 years were similarly poor, conservative, agricultural, and opposed to northern Republicans, so joined the Democratic Party. The northern Dems grew urban, industrialized, affluent, and grew to strongly support civil rights, utterly rejecting the hateful racism with the force of law of Southern US conservative.
The 1964 civil rights act and 1965 voting rights act caused the Southern conservatives to reject the Democratic Party, and Republican Party Presidential candidate Nixon, in 1968, and 1972, converted the South's conservatives into Republicans.
To solve this with a full set of historical is probably best, showing which states voted which way, is probably best, but we need text summaries as well.
For text grids, we need to define the US South, and how many of the region belonged to which political party, so we may see which party, Democrats or Repulbicans, are considered more liberal and more conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.236.69 (talk) 03:14, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
It shows Kansas with a Republican trifecta. Kansas has a Democratic governor. Map needs updated to show Kansas as yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.144.153 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it should also include, and that way specify, whether the State has split Legislatures, or the Legislature and the Governor are different parties. Minnesota is currently the only state to have a split Legislature with Republicans controlling the Senate and Democrats controlling the House, and a Democratic Governor. Elyon127 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Presidentman: Before you do a major overhaul on that table, I think you should inform us of what your plans are. Because, personally, the current structure of that table is fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add the District of Columbia and the territories, as they are considered state-level entities for statistical purposes, but first I want to be sure that it won't be reverted again. In addition, I'd like to change the name of the article to "Political party strength in U.S. states and territories" so that D.C. and the the territories can be included. The scope of the article should include the territories and the District of Columbia, as they are included on other politics-related articles (see for example, List of United States governors, State attorney general, and List of state and territorial capitols in the United States). LumaP15 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute about whether to include the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories (in tables) within the Political party strength in U.S. states article. The five U.S. territories are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proposal to include the District of Columbia and territories would involve moving the article to "Political party strength in the U.S. states and territories" or simply "Political party strength in the United States". The argument in favor of including the District of Columbia and territories in the article is that these political entities are often considered state-equivalents, with state-like characteristics (such as governors and legislatures). The opposing argument is that the District of Columbia and territories are not relevant to the article. 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Whatever stat is being used for the "partisan split" column is being applied incorrectly. The table indicates that Kentucky has a Democratic-leaning partisan split, even though Trump & McConnell are winning by wide margins in every poll? That makes no sense. Voter registration stats do not equate to a partisan split, or "political party strength" in that state. This really needs to be fixed, it's plainly wrong & doesn't pass the smell test.
Well there is a Democratic Governor, and McConnell and Trump have nothing to do with any State Legislature make ups, they would be the Federal government. Though states like Kentucky and West Virginia almost certainly vote Republican for Presidents, the state Legislatures aren't always garunteed (though still tend to lean that way) and there can certainly be more Democrats that are registered, but perhaps vote Republican more for different people or reasons. The same thing happens in Wisconsin and Maine quite a bit. Elyon127 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)