Talk:Political party strength in U.S. states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nebraska's nonpartisan status[edit]

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)

Confusion about Chart[edit]

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)[reply]

See superscript notation "g", noted below the chart. Rostz (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, too. The "g" explains where stats for the states that provide the preference option upon voting come from, but what about the other states?--Mike74 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They come from Political Machine 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing Definitions of Political Parties and Meaningless tabulation of their strength of years[edit]

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)

Party control of state Legislatures and Governorships Map Wrong[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Under construction tag[edit]

@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)[reply]

@IJBall: All I did was update the registration numbers to reflect current data. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: That's excellent, then. But for something like that, I don't think you need to add an {{Under construction}} tag – this tag usual implies that substantial changes are about to be made. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding D.C. and the territories[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Oppose – if someone wants to do a separate article on the territories, they can write up a draft and we can take a look at that, but the territories are out of WP:SCOPE for this article, and are frankly irrelevant to this article. As for DC, it's not a "state", and until it is, it is not relevant here either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For statistical purposes, D.C. and the territories are state-level entities (see for example [2], in which the U.S. Census Bureau specifically mentions these entities as state-equivalents). That's why territories such as Puerto Rico have governors. Because they don't have full political integration (e.g. they don't have U.S. senators), they should not be in the same table as the states -- but they should still have a table in the article. Also, making a separate article entitled "Political party strength in the U.S. territories" might not work -- it might be merged into this article.
The question is, what makes the territories and D.C. worthy of exclusion, when they are sub-entities directly below the federal level (albeit without some state characteristics). In terms of scope, the territories and D.C. are within the scope of the article, so long as the article is renamed "Political party strength in U.S. states and territories". As I said, other U.S. political list articles such as State attorney general already have the territories listed. LumaP15 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already told you what you can do – write up a (separate) draft on the territories. But territories are irrelevant to the topic at hand: they do not participate in the electoral college, they do not send Senators or (full) Representatives to Congress. And many don't even have "Democrat" or "Republican" parties in the way the 50 states do. They are completely off-topic and out-of-WP:SCOPE for this article. As for DC, I'm fine with it being mentioned in passing in a sentence or two, but it should not be put in the tables – it's not a U.S. "state". So, no – I still oppose your proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some of the territories don't have the normal Democrat/Republican system doesn't mean they should be excluded. True, they don't have U.S. senators, but they still have their own legislatures, governors, and a representative (which makes them relevant). While their representatives cannot vote on the final passage of bills, they are still representatives in every other way (e.g. they can write a bill, sponsor a bill, etc.) Also, D.C. is in the electoral college.
An entity does not have to be a full-fledged state to be included in this article. As I said, that's why other Wikipedia articles include both states and territories (see for example List of state and territorial capitols in the United States). The best thing to do would be to include the territories and D.C. in the article, but keep them separate from the states (in separate tables). LumaP15 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on proposal to add the District of Columbia and territories to the article[edit]

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)

  • Support adding the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to the article. Other Wikipedia state lists (such as List of state and territorial capitols in the United States, State attorney general, and List of United States governors) include both states and territories in each article's respective list. Also, the U.S. Census Bureau considers the District of Columbia and the territories to be state-equivalents (see [3]). In addition, just like the states, each territory has its own political party strength Wikipedia article (for example, the article Political party strength in American Samoa). Because territories such as Puerto Rico are sub-national entities directly below the federal level (like the states), and because they share many characteristics with states (such as governors and legislatures), they should be included. The article's title should be changed to "Political party strength in U.S. states and territories" or "Political party strength in the United States". The District of Columbia and the territories should have their own tables (separate from the state table). LumaP15 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the WP:SCOPE of this article – the territories are irrelevant to the topic at hand: they do not participate in the electoral college, they do not send Senators or (full) Representatives to Congress. And many don't even have "Democrat" or "Republican" parties in the way the 50 states do. They are completely off-topic and out-of-WP:SCOPE for this article – a separate article on this topic might be OK. As for DC, I'm fine with it being mentioned in passing in a sentence or two, but it should not be put in the tables – it's not a U.S. "state". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DC sends three electors to the College. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I said it can be mentioned in the article. But it's not a "state" and so doesn't belong in the tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support - The article titles will need renaming in order to clarify these exceptions, of course. "Political party strength in the U.S. states and territories" is a fair replacement. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Like many Wikipedia lists and articles, this one can serve many purposes for many different readers — not just in regard to the politics of the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress as @IJBall: contends (otherwise it wouldn't list governors and state legislative houses as well as Federal offiicals.) And even with a national focus, it's useful to know the background of the half-dozen non-state delegations to each party's national conventions ("from Guam, where America's day begins...") and to the Democratic and Republican National Committees. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find the oppose rationale expressed so far unconvincing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It makes sense to add the territories here. We already have articles like List of states and territories of the United States by population. Adding a few more polities won't bulk this article up unnecessarily. Sure, Puerto Rico has different major parties. That alone shouldn't disqualify them being added. There are plenty of ways to show differentiation between states and territories, whether it be a separate table, astrisks, you-name-it. Properly executed this will only be a good addition. TheSavageNorwegian 19:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as OFFTOPIC, not relevant to the article which is about level of representation "providing legislators to the state and to the U.S. Congress ..." Territories do not provide Representatives or Senators, and the list here has a variety of internal management and even whether or not they are citizens or get to vote in U.S. elections. These simply are not states and are not a part of “political party strength in U.S. States”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as irrelevant and off-topic. The states elect electors, senators, congresspeople. The territories and DC do not, and their representation is limited to Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives who as their name implies do not vote and are not counted for political power. Until the US changes the representation of non-state entities in US federal politics then they are irrelevant. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They already did, that's what the 23rd Amendment was all about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: D.C. has 3 electoral votes in the electoral college. Also, some of the columns in the table are not related to federal politics (such as governors, local senate, local house, and partisan split). The territories and D.C. could be included because they have local legislatures, governors, etc. Also, the territorial representatives in the U.S. House do have some political power, such as the power to write and sponsor bills, the power to vote within a committee, etc. LumaP15 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as this article is about more than federal representation. State and territory legislatures are where most of the laws in the United States originate. Territorial legislatures are just as important in this way as state legislatures. --WMSR (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states&oldid=1209802036"