Talk:Constitution Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article Quality[edit]

There is a lot of information that may be useful, properly organized, but is distributed oddly over the whole work. Lots of editing work to be done. The affiliates table is likely too useful for deletion, but perhaps it should go at the end of the article?

This article also suffers from POV framing and leans heavily on hyperbolic editorials as citations. I just looked up the references for the "far right" label, and they were all polemical or dismissive references rather than an attempt to identify the CP with the views on the wiki "far right" page. So right now this labeling misleadingly suggests that CP has ideological affinities with fascism, hierarchical nationalism, etc. In fact, CP is basically a throwback to 19th century U.S. politics. Right-wing, yes, but not "far" right.

Ideally we could provide a more enlightening introductory paragraph, which doesn't give a good sense of what the party actually stands for. Hopefully I'll get to some of this clean-up in the next few days.Monomakhos (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Affiliation with the American Independent Party[edit]

Right now, the history section gives the impression that the AIP merged with the Constitution Party, which seems not to be accurate. The AIP was the California affiliate with the CP from 1992-2008 and then underwent a dispute over whether to remain so affiliated. Breaking into factions, one side supported Alan Keyes and the American Party in the Presidential campaign rather than supporting CP's Chuck Baldwin. They secured ballot access under the AIP name in California, so arguably the American Party faction has greater claim as *the* AIP. In any case, the issue is disputed, and so probably we should revise the history section to avoid making stronger claims than are warranted. Monomakhos (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the criticism above. The author of this article is unclear on the concept of the relation of State Political Parties to National Parties. State parties are affiliated with national parties, they are not PART of national parties, hence the verbs "to absorb" or to "split" are inappropriate to say the least. One view of national parties is that they are coalitions of State parties, associated mainly to address national elections for Congress & the Presidency.

BraveLad (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The very title of this Talk Section exhibits political dyslexia. National parties do not affiliate with State parties, nor do they in most instances "absorb" them. State parties affiliate with national parties, not the reverse. State parties may DISaffiliate from national parties, witness the parting of the American Independent Party of California from the Constitution Party by the affirmative act of affiliating with America's Independent Party which later changed its name to America's Party. This article gets that wrong too.

BraveLad (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated parties with name "Constitution Party"[edit]

Information about older, defunct parties with the same name is irrelevant to this article. Unless there are NPOV citations establishing that these other organizations are related in some way, we should refrain from mentioning them.

This can't be the third largest party[edit]

Both this page and the Libertarian page both claim to be the third largest parties in America. Since the Libertarian Page has three sources, and this page has only 1, I think we should go with the page with more evidence.99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, if not with the conclusion. Surely there must be official records of registered voters for these organizations which can settle which is larger. Actual records should be favoured over more citations. But otherwise I agree, only one of these should be marked as the third-largest. TheSix (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the United States' largest states don't require voters to register by political party; so figures are distorted by accidents of local practice. If you accept that the AIP in California is still a Constitution Party affiliate, and if you go by total figures only from states which do have partisan registration, than it's the CP by raw number count, due purely to California. If you do not do anything of the sort, I'd say that the Libbies are probably the de facto biggest third party in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Are you proposing a # of voters in AIP vs Libertarian (or Constitution) primaries as the metric to determine which is the larger party? It is not clear why registration would be the best or most relevant indicator of party size, as party affiliation is something that is often only an indicator of which primary a voter wished to participate in during a given electoral cycle. [This is not an 'accident of local practice,' but the intended effect of electoral rules.] Here are some possible ways to evaluate party size:
  • VOTE SHARE

Many (most) minor parties have nominating conventions and not primaries, so a vote share is not recorded in Secretaries of State's records, so primary vote may be misleading. Lets look at all possible votes (combining votes cast at primary & general). If you wanted to use vote counts to determine the size of a party, the AIP & Constitution Party garnered ~34,000 primary & ~145,000 general votes over 56 candidates in the 2012 congressional elections [according to the FEC [1] [Note: if you use the fusion ballot results - from NY & Oregon- that total increases to ~335,000 votes over 57 candidates.] It looks like the highest minor party vote getter (by FAR) in the 2012 congressional elections is the Democratic Farmer Labor with 4.1M votes for 26 candidates, though this party is 'affiliated' with the Democratic Party. The next largest party in 3rd party vote share was Libertarian with 2.3M votes over 212 candidates, followed by the Independent Party, Working Families, Conservative Party, Progressive Party...with an AIP / Constitution Party combination (including votes cast on fusion ballots) coming in around the 13th largest vote getter. So... by votes cast in federal contests, AIP/Constitution is assuredly NOT the third largest party.

  • CANDIDATES FIELDED

Oligarchies need oligarchs, so parties have to field candidates to gain power. If one wanted to use the number of candidates fielded to assess party size, the Libertarian Party does a far better job than any other minor party to attract candidates to run under their label.

  • PARTISANSHIP

The 'third largest party' claims the original poster is concerned about seems to be making claims about party identification - a political-sociological concept that is not about ascribing party 'membership' as recorded by a party. The ANES tracks partisan 'identifiers' since 1952, but their measure is focused upon the 2 relevant parties in the US and trying to put them in relation to each other [though the original conceptualization suggested more about identification as a group than ideological content or relational position]. [2]Gallup also does not seem to have enough non-major party identifiers to report from their rolling sample. Other ideas where to look for this public opinion info? CCES? [I am aware of no reliable data to use this metric to determine minor party size]

  • ELECTORAL WINNERS / ELECTED OFFICIALS

You could use # of electoral winners as the metric to decide size of party - as is historically used to describe a party system. [DFL:9; Independent:1; American Independent/Constitution:0; LIB:0]. So, in that instance [again], neither page is correct. [DFL & Independent caucus with the Democrats.] You could use vote share in presidential elections (relevant to several advantages -financial, balloting - for the party in coming elections). In the most recent U.S. Presidential election, the Libertarians garnered the most votes in 2012 of any non-major party candidate, but less than 1% of popular vote [3] Gary Johnson garnered 1.2M votes (followed by Jill Stein of the Green Party). Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus (1996) [4] conclude that the success of third party candidates in the US historically is more a function of candidate quality (name recognition, prior electoral experience) than organizational factors. Further findings point to dissatisfaction with existing parties / trust in govt / scandal are all factors that seem to lead to increases in minor party vote share. So... not about membership size or primary participation. Whether using number of fielded candidates, vote share, count of elected representatives, or some other unspecified metric, discussing which is the third largest party in the US is probably not a worth wasting more time on. They are both very minor parties in a two-party system. Potentate4 (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideology of Constitution Party[edit]

I've been bothered by the Constitution Party being listed as "Far right" on social issues for a while, not because I am a member of the party or am even sympathetic to its positions on social issues(I'm not- I'm sure Constitutional Party members would condemn many of my raw Libertarian beliefs). Characterizing the party as "Far right" is problematic for several reasons, mainly because there isn't any thing in the platform which someone who is on the right side of the Republican mainstream would disagree with. That the reference cited was from the SPLC, an organization which tends to label almost all committed conservatives as "extreme" or "Far right" is also a problem.

But listing them as simply "right wing" has its own problems as well. The Constitution Party does approach things from a different angle much as the Libertarian Party does(I've heard Libertarians called "right wing" on economic issues and "left wing" on social issues, but that's a gross oversimplification. The best way to describe the views of the Constitution Party might be Paleoconservatism or Right-wing populism. After all, the party was started as a vehicle for Pat Buchanan and he and the press both describes himself using those terms. VictorianMutant(Talk) 10:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Far right again. What do we mean by far right? The definition in the Far-right politics article is "Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior." This does not seem to describe the CP's stated beliefs. JASpencer (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wonders of ideology, the following definitions are listed on the wikipedia article ideology David W. Minar describes six different ways in which the word "ideology" has been used:

   As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
   As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
   By the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction;
   By the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization;
   As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
   As the locus of social interaction.

For Willard A. Mullins an ideology should be contrasted with the related (but different) issues of utopia and historical myth. An ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:

   it must have power over cognition
   it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
   it must provide guidance towards action; and
   it must be logically coherent.

Terry Eagleton outlines (more or less in no particular order) some definitions of ideology:[12]

   the process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life;
   a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class;
   ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
   false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
   systematically distorted communication;
   that which offers a position for a subject;
   forms of thought motivated by social interests;
   identity thinking;
   socially necessary illusion;
   the conjuncture of discourse and power;
   the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world;
   action-oriented sets of beliefs;
   the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality;
   semiotic closure;
   the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure;
   the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality.

173.15.73.108 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is none of those statements address the fact that most of the values that were listed in the ideology box were already covered by the ideologies listed. We don't need over a dozen values listed when we can list half as many ideologies. Alexander Levian (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If we accept, for the sake of argument, your claim that the listing was "Policies, concepts and generic phrases, not ideologies", where do policies like Isolationism and Protectionism gain legitimacy? 173.15.73.108 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's fair to leave those isms out of the ideology box. Those are policies/values and are already covered with Paleoconservatism. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Political position of the Constitution Party[edit]

This is a conservative party and conservative parties are labeled center right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

conservative parties are labeled center right? That's a sweepingly meaningless statement. "Conservative" covers a lot of ground, and there is no centrist faction or element in the Constitution Party whatsoever. They are right-wing and proud of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with OrangeMike... if anything, the Constitution Party is a reaction against what they perceive as the "center-right" stance of the GOP. They might not be "far right" (as I mentioned above), but they sit firmly on the right side of the spectrum on almost all issues. Even those issues in which they tend to disagree with the right and agree with the left (such as against free trade and against interventionism), they tend to do so with a conservative worldview- not because they are "liberal" or "centrist" on the issue. VictorianMutant(Talk) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Some people keep changing 'right wing' to 'far right'. We can discuss this here and try to reach a consensus. I don't believe the Constitution Party to be far-right as they do not openly advocate oppression against any groups of people. They also do not embrace ideas like the third position, racialism, which are common among far-right parties like the American Third Position Party or the National Socialist Movement (United States). The Constitution Party also had a prominent black member, Alan Keyes, for a short period of time. --Jay942942 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I concede your point. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would agree that right wing is appropriate and that "far right" is more POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

i'm quite certain the constitution party is a christian supremacist party. is that not far right?50.82.219.80 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We do go by what sources say though, right? We don't decide ourselves what it is. And far right is different from ultra-right, lke the NSM, etc. So we say how it has been described, not what we ourselves see it as. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where is it specifically described as far right and not right wing? Redtread95 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim had several reliable sources cited. You can look at them once I restore the information. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Far Right was removed. The Party fits ZERO of the traits as listed in the Wikipedia Far Right. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't override the reliable sources. The information has been restored. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence containing the Southern Poverty Law Center. This type of critique is inappropriate in an Overview section, which should simply be used to describe the subject of the article. Hackercraft (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I restored it, since it does describe the party; where else in the article would you say it belongs? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't describe the party. It gives the SPLC's opinion of the party, which is inappropriate in the Overview section. I wouldn't say it even belongs in the article, nevertheless, at your request, I moved it. Hackercraft (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Add presidential ticket (names) to table?[edit]

I suggest adding the presidential ticket (names) to the table of Election Results for President. (I would still retain the "Presidential tickets" section, but this could also be done by merging the two.) Tripodics (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Theocratic[edit]

I see there is was a discussion over 6 years ago with editors trying to argue over whether or not this party is theocratic. Again, that is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia should work. We can, and should, say that the CP and its predecessor have been described as theocratic. I note that one of its affiliates, the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan, is evidently committed to the principles of Biblical law. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Although it's clear that there are observers who call the Constitution Party "Theocratic" and this should be in the article, I'm rather uneasy that all the three sources I've seen (and the fourth one is published by Nation books) are identifiably on the left either by source (Chip Berlet and the SPLC) or by tone of the article. I think that this should be represented within the text, particularly as a lot of Constitution Party supporters seem to hate the label (no matter how deserved - I'm not going to offer an opinion here). JASpencer (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The SPLC statement was from The Philadelphia Inquirer so they thought it was worth using - I don't think you can call them on the left, nor do we call the SPLC left. P. 86 of the book you asked about says "was indignant. He promptly transferred his support from Dole to his longtime friend Howard Phillips, a Far Right stalwart running under the banner of the theocratic U.S. Taxpayers Party." I don't think it's needed in the footnote. We aren't saying that it is theocratic, just that it's been described as theocratic, which is clearly correct. A statement like that is of course made by its critics (and given their goals it's clear why they say that). Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find many on the left who think that the SPLC is on the right, but you will find an awful lot of people on the right who consider the SPLC to be on the left. That aside whether the Philadelphia Enquirer thinks the quote is good enough or not is not a sign of approval or neutral point of view, the view is still the SPLC's. I think that the theocratic tag is important as a lot of critical comment on the Constitution Party uses this tag, but we should ensure that it's clear that this is from critics and not from friends or neutral bystanders.
On the Blumenthal quote, I think it's safer to take that citation out as it seems to be incidental to the book.JASpencer (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
So maybe the SPLC is in the center, in any case the consensus at the SPLC's article is not to describe it as on the left. You'd expect people on the right to call almost anyone they disagree with as left-wing. It's fine to say critics. As for the citation, it's the only one that states that its predecessor was also theocratic, so take it out and that bit is unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Both left and right are quite capable of calling out those they disagree with. I'm very surprised that SPLC is seen as anything other than left wing ground, but then lots of articles can attract supporters (as this one seems to have). JASpencer (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A Bottom Up, Not Top Down Organization[edit]

The Constitution Party is unlike other political parties in that it has a bottom up rather than a top down organization. Per it's national bylaws, each state organization is regarded as an independent affiliate. In fact, each state party must submit a signed document to the national organization every four years before their presidential nominating convention pledging their fidelity to national party principles and affirming that they have a duly elected organization with their own state bylaws and depository bank account. Other than that, they are completely on their own and do not receive any financial support or direction from the national organization. This is why some state affiliates do not identify themselves with the "Constitution Party" name even though they send committeemen and delegates to national meetings and conventions and vote on internal national party policies. Thus, the states are free to take independent positions and actions on issues where the national has not yet stated any. It is for this reason that yesterday's proposed Wikipedia page merger (and by who's authority, anyway) is completely out of order. Merging of the state pages will muddy all of the individual state party histories and just add confusion to the subject - SOMETHING WHICH IS 180 DEGREES COMPLETELY OPPOSITE OF WIKIPEDIA'S STATED OBJECTIVES. - Lexington62 (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly don't understand or perhaps disagree with our concept and criteria of 'notability'. None of what you have written above is relevant to whether or not they should have articles. And the decision at the AfD is supported at WP:DRV. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

merging[edit]

If we unmark this for merge i will keep this page active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Ricks (talkcontribs) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd need a compelling reason to overturn the decision of the now-closed AFD and DelReview. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that decision was made through due process and an appeal denied through due process. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I live in the state and well knowledgeable about all political parties in Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Ricks (talkcontribs) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Also Im talking about the Idaho CP party not the Alabama one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Ricks (talkcontribs) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A New Color Scheme for the Constitution Party[edit]

Can someone explain to me why it was somehow decided to use a shade of violet/purple (#A356DE) as the color for the Constitution Party? I can't see any logical reason why a shade of violet would be used for a right-wing Christian party. Violet is a feminine color associated perhaps with the LGBT community and left-wing social justice movements. I think it would make most logical sense to use a shade of beige like #D2B48C for the Constitution Party- the color of the parchment of the U.S. Constitution, and a color that better reflects the stoic conservatism of the Constitution Party. The official colors of the Constitution Party are red, white, and blue- I can't find any evidence whatsoever that the Constitution Party identifies "purple" as its color, other than an unsourced claim on Wikipedia itself claiming that purple is its "customary" color; there is nothing "purple" on the Constitution Party website. I think the color used for the Constitution Party should be changed to better reflect the party and its values. Purple does NOT fit the Constitution Party. A shade of beige resembling the parchment of the U.S. Constitution would be a much better fit for the Constitution Party. Inqvisitor (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with this sentiment. Either Beige, as suggested, or Orange. Websites like Ballotpedia.org frequently use Orange or shades of Orange for the Constitution Party and the Conservative Party of New York.

The info box on Ballotpedia uses Orange: https://ballotpedia.org/Constitution_Party For example, the Constitution Party candidate gets an Orange icon here: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Wyoming,_2016 73.150.184.160 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Theocracy[edit]

Regarding the use of "theocracy" in the lead: I did a quick search and the cited article was the only news article I saw that called the party a theocracy. Admittedly, the search wasn't overly in-depth. If there are more reliable sources that call it that, I'd be happy to look at them and see if my position should change, but as it stands, I think the term is very loaded and doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead based on a single article. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed a bit above. There are other sources at [1] although not all of the references to theocratic are about this party. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which ones DO call it theocratic? You and I have both been around long enough to know that the search results won't mean much if we don't know which ones use the term specifically in reference to the party. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at some of them, I find it interesting that Blumenthal is one who uses it. He's the one we use as a source earlier. Aren't there other sources on the party besides him? The second source on the list is from a company called OR Books, a print-on-demand "alternative" publisher. I'm gonna have to question the reliability there. One of those sources (A Religion of Peace) actually says that the party is not a theocratic one. The rest of the ones one the first two pages or results don't support calling them a theocracy. So again, we're pretty much limited to one or two sources saying it (and one that refutes it), and the use is a bit dubious. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to throw in my two cents that recent candidates in the party seem to be moving away from the Christian Reconstructionism elements and more towards overt nationalist positions (anti-immigration, isolationism, protectionism). It's worth noting that a number of candidates have been Mormons and Catholics, who presumably wouldn't subscribe to Christian Reconstructionism as such (though are probably sympathetic to a larger "Christian America" rhetoric.) I think the party is more comparable to, say, France's Front National (which also has theocratic roots but is not a strictly theocratic party at this point) than to the Netherlands' SGP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

POV removal of 'right-wing'[edit]

We now have the party called a conservative party with a source that says

"Another far-right organization with whom the AIP has long been aligned is Howard Phillips’ militia-minded Constitution Party. The AIP has been listed as the Constitution Party’s state affiliate since the late 1990s, and it has endorsed the Constitution Party’s presidential candidates (Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin) in the past two elections.

The Constitution Party boasts an openly theocratic platform that reads, “It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”

I'm sure there are sources that call it conservative, but there are also sources that call it right-wing - do people seriously see it as some equivalent to the Republican Party? The Republicans are conservative - isn't this group to the right, as many sources say? Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The source (Blumenthal) seems to like to use words like theocracy and right-wing. He spreads it around. But inevitably, it comes back to a guy saying it. "Right-wing" can be used as a pejorative and I think it is being used that way in this case. Let me ask this, if we eliminate anything with Blumenthal's fingerprints on it, can we really support this more strongly than saying "conservative"? Are we essentially letting one guy set the tone of this article? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I gather you haven't looked for sources calling it right wing? Leaving it for others to do? I will later then.Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Doug, I haven't made this confrontational, so I'd appreciate it if you keep the snipe comments to a minimum. No, I haven't looked for proof that some sources called it "right wing". Why exactly would I since my point was that the term is being used as a pejorative? If I can find 5-10 reliable sources that call Justin Bieber a "punk", would you expect that to go in the lead of his bio? Just because someone has said it doesn't make it the best choice. This is especially true in the lead, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Some discussion later in the article is one thing, but lead, and in this case the first sentence, is something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Niteshift36, my apologies. Although I do try my best to find sources myself. I've removed the NPOV tag. In fact, I've been confused by the fact there is a lot about a party with this name which I don' think we've written about, one that Carto was involved with. Eg[[2] and others.

The lead used to read: The Constitution Party is a right-wing political party in the United States, also described as being on the far right.[5][6][7][8][9]

There was also:

Its website states that "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."[10] This has led to its being described as a theocratic party, as was its predecessor.[11][12]

Can we go through those sources and agree what we can use and how? Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml
  2. ^ see http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm
  3. ^ see http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/tables2012.pdf
  4. ^ http://press.princeton.edu/titles/1832.html
  5. ^ Rudin, Ken. "Election 2010 Scorecard". National Public Radio. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  6. ^ Clarkson, Fred (May 5, 2004). "Will Roy Moore crack the Bush base?". Salon Magazine.
  7. ^ Cohen, Nancy L. (2012). Delirium: The Politics of Sex in America. Counterpoint. p. 321. ISBN 1582438013.
  8. ^ Joyce, Kathryn (2010). Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. Beacon Press. p. 7, 28. ISBN 978-0807010730.
  9. ^ Lovell, Jarret S. (2009). Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Conscience. New York University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0814752272.
  10. ^ "Constitution Party National Platform". Constitution Party. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  11. ^ Blumenthal, Max (2010). Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party. Nation Books. p. 86. ISBN 978-1568584171.
  12. ^ "Meet Sarah Palin's radical right-wing pals". Salon Magazine. Oct 10 2008. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

OR Books is one of those things where you have to make case by case decisions, as some of its authors look pretty good. I think we can say it is decribed as right wing by Blumenthal and the SPLC, but not in the first paragraph.

  • I think what complicates this is that the party has been so fluid. It has made several changes over the years and has had state level parties using the same name join and leave the national party. That's another reason I'm hesitant to "tar and feather" the party by using a term like "theocracy" in the lead. I'd also note that both of the sources calling it theocratic are from the same author, Blumenthal. This isn't a question of whether or not a RS has ever said that. The question is whether or not the term is used regularly enough to be one of the first things a reader sees? I don't see the broad use that would make me comfortable with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Here's an earlier version[3]. It mentions theocratic but doesn't put it in the lead. Two other sources there also. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

How is "right-wing" a pejorative? Calling a party left, center, or right is a common manner of categorizing groups in political science. Mics 777 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing any political party as "right-wing" or "theocratic" has nothing to do with how the group is referred to regularly. They're political science terms and are quite neutral. Any perceived negative meanings just have to do with personal value judgments and depend on the reader; e.g., the government of Iran would happily call itself a theocracy, but in the U.S. or U.K., we often condemn such governments. Mics 777 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Constitution Party of Nevada[edit]

"The CPNV is not affiliated with any national party."[4] - if they say so, we should believe it. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over political position[edit]

We have had the following apply at different times over the past month:

I would like to find some consensus before an edit war breaks out. Now the sources, all of them, refer to the party as "far right". A while back I listed 'right wing' with 'far right' and added a citation needed to the right wing statement. This would seem to work for the time being. If anyone wants the party's position to be listed as just right wing, we will need to see sources. If there are problems with the sources let's discuss it. However, the current sources used don't label them 'right wing' and the article should reflect this. I'm open to other ideas, but simply ignoring the sources isn't one of them. AlexanderLevian (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the party should be referred to as "Right wing to far-right", as a person or organization's location on the political spectrum often relative and/or subjective. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, there are no sources in this article which label the CP as right-wing, and it will probably be difficult to find one. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. To be fair, this discussion should remain open until we hear from at least one of the editors that keep removing the 'far-right' label. Just trying to prevent an edit war. AlexanderLevian (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I am a late-comer to this, but I'll speak for the other side. I am uncomfortable with the characterization as "far right", at least as it stands right now. The online sources cited that call the CP "far right" are editorials, and aren't exactly NPOV. That might be okay, except for two things: (1) linking to the "far right" wikipedia page gives the impression that the editorial writer is using that term as synonymous with the Wiki characterization, when it's perhaps a rhetorical flourish common to political editorials (e.g., the "far left" SPLC); and (2) the use of passive voice ("The party is considered a far-right political party") obscures the fact that it is particular people and organizations that are characterizing the CP as far right. As for (1), we don't have evidence that the editorialists meant to compare the CP to, say, neo-fascists or other political hierarchicalists. We can resolve (1) by not linking to the "far right" wiki page. As for (2), as it stands it uses weasel wording. We can resolve (2) by removing the passive voice and making clear who characterizes the CP as far right.
Even if we do all this however, I wonder if we aren't just obscuring the fact that "far right" is fairly vague as a label, and often used as pejorative. That is how I'm inclined to see its use in the sources cited. As applied to, say, National Socialism, it is probably a useful term. When applied to the CP, I suspect that it's just an attempt to associate the CP with more radical political positions. Monomakhos (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the use of "Far right" in the sources isn't meant to be a weasel word, it's just used to associate them with groups like American Independent Party, American Freedom Party, American First Party, Christian Liberty Party, etc. due to their more anticommunist, nationalistic and anti-immigration views compared to the center-right. This puts them to the right of mainstream right-wing. The problem isn't it being listed as Far right, but the existence of that term itself. It seems that anyone can be called "Far [something]" if they are radical, criminal, out of the mainstream, advocating revolution, left (or right) of center left (or center right), advocate terrorism, want to install a dictatorship, not a moderate, etc. This is a very, very loose association and generally not useful. With that said, my main concerns are making sure the articles stick to the sources and maintaining consistency between the articles about political parties/caucuses. I'm trying to come up with a solution to this that can be applied to all (at least American) political parties/organizations. A page dedicated to the American political spectrum may be called for, but I just don't know. I'm always open to suggestions. Thank you for your patience with my terrible response time. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideologies in the infobox[edit]

AlexanderLevian says that "political positions in info boxes for political parties in the United States are in alphabetical order", but that is not true. As with most political parties in the world, ideologies are listed by priority or logical order. In fact, it would be quite strange to have "Fiscal conservatism" or "Laissez-faire" before "Libertarianism" in the Libertarian Party's infobox. Republican and Democratic ideologies reflect both a logical and an alphabetic order. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That statement is true for the Republican Party and Democratic Party. However you are right about the Libertarian Party. I should have said that this is generally the case. I'm not going to mess with it until we can come to some sort of agreement. I may be missing something. How does it being in alphabetical order cause (or contribute to) the problem that you were trying to fix? Thanks for starting this discussion. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, I have no problems with the alphabetical order (that is why I fixed it twice after your edit summary) if that is the option you like most. This said, I would prioritize the ideologies logically, in the following way: Paleoconservatism, Fiscal conservatism, Social conservatism, Christian right, Dominion Theology. I have some douts about mentioning the latter because it is not exactly an ideology, but it is ultimately OK with me. --Checco (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You might be onto something. I agree that the list of ideologies should have some logic behind the order. Maybe we could put Paleoconservativism at the top in bold and have the rest of them in alphabetical order? Alexander Levian (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's probably the best idea. This is primarily a paleoconservative, theocratic party. Those should receive primary attention to distinguish it from more mainstream, non-paleo groups. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. However, I would refrain from using bold and I stick to the order I proposed — Paleoconsevatism, Fiscal conservatism, Social conservatism, Christian right, Theocracy — even though the latter seems a little bit too far to me. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This order seems more logical: Paleoconsevatism, Christian right, Social conservatism, Fiscal conservatism, Theocracy. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, why? Fiscal conservatism is connected to Paleconservatism, while Christian right is not. Not a bid deal, anyway: you can go ahead with your order. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree theocracy is a bit too far as well. Doesn't change this is a party heavily influenced by the religious right, but they aren't arguing for anything like, say, Iran. Toa Nidhiki05 10:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed "theocracy" and moved "paleoconservatism" up. As I said, I think that "fiscal conservatism" and "social conservatism" should go right after "paleoconservatism", as they are two tenets of it. "Christian right" could/should go to the fourth place. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Opening the article with Criticism[edit]

No "major party" starts with criticism in the opening section. This has no sense to an equitable format via an unbaised journal. Will be removing such text and reformatting to place such discussion after the identification, unless there are good answers given as to why such should stay in the opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Registering a continued intent to alter the opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Altering Opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
More alterations involving almost complete rewrite. Removed critcism and actually discussed the party and its intents. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Constitution Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

They all worked, except the 4th, 10th, 12th, 14th, and 16th archived URLs. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

All of them were successful. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Successful, except the 5th and 6th links (jimgilchrist.com and standardspeaker.com). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution Party (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)