Talk:List of ruling political parties by country

The title is wrong

As per Talk:List of political parties by UN geoscheme, this lists is not of parties, but of party systems. --Cerejota 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) It is table holding the lists of political parties by country. the present name is as correct as is the name of your Lists of political parties by United Nations geoscheme. Electionworld Talk? 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All discussion should take place on Talk:List_of_political_parties

Please do not use this page for discussion at this time. Any discussions should take place on Talk:List_of_political_parties. --Torfason 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominant party

Countries with 1 party holding 60% or more of the parliament /legislative or have at least a majority along with samller parties having less thann 40% on the last election.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's your definition of a dominant-party system, you're at odds with Wikipedia's definitions. A dominant-party system "is a party system where only one political party can realistically become the government." A two-party system is "where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties."

Among your many edits on January 11, 2010, you changed the United States from "two-party" to "dominant party," which is inaccurate according to the aforementioned definitions and according to various Wikipedia articles ("Notable examples of countries with two-party systems include the United States and Jamaica"). This calls into question the reliability of some of the other changes you made. Recommend that someone with expertise review and correct those edits as needed. AtticusX (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Errors.

The list says that Nauru has a two-party system. Um... What parties would those be, then? As pointed out by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, "there are no political parties in Nauru, all MPs stand as independents". Nauru's most recent election did not involve political parties. Going by Wikipedia's definition of a two-party system, it's clearly wrong to say that it fits Nauru.
Likewise for Niue. Niue has no political parties at all, and historically has only ever had one, which is now dissolved, so I don't see how it can be called a two-party state...
I would also question the claim that Papua New Guinea has a dominant party system. The PNG Parliament is fractured between multiple small parties, and every government is a coalition. The National Alliance Party may be the biggest party at present, but a) it has only 30 seats out of 109, and governs through a coalition, and b) it is not always the biggest party: in 1997, it came fourth with just 6 seats, and it was the People's National Congress Party which supplied the Prime Minister. Hardly characteristics of a dominant party sytem.
The indication for Samoa is also wrong. Samoa is listed as having a two-party sytem, but it is unquestionably a dominant party system. To quote from the Australian DPFA: "In elections held on 31 March 2006, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), which has governed Samoa since 1982, was returned to power with an increased majority. It holds 35 of the 49 parliamentary seats. Samoa’s parliament does not have a formal opposition. The Samoa Democratic United Party (SDUP) was formerly the main opposition party, but parliament withdrew that recognition after SDUP in-fighting in late 2006 resulted in a split, leaving the party without the minimum number of MPs necessary to be recognised as a party under standing orders."
Lastly, Tonga is listed as having a multi-party system. That's... debatable, but I suppose we can leave it that way. Under the current system (which is due to change with upcoming reforms), only a minority of MPs are actually elected by the citizens; the others are non-partisan members elected by the nobility, and royal appointees. The MPs who are democratically elected almost all belong to the same party - so I'm not really certain it can be called a "multi-party system" in any meaningful sense.
I'm going to fix Nauru, Niue, PNG and Samoa, but I'll leave Tonga's classification up for debate. Aridd (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the section regarding Canada as the country was listed as having a two party system divided between the Conservatives and Liberals. This is clearly inaccurate as the Liberal Party of Canada is at present a third party, well behind the centre-left, New Democratic Party in terms of seat count and popular support. Canada could very well be heading towards a two-party divide between the Conservatives and NDP but that cannot be determined until the 2015 Canadian federal election. Until then I believe that it is more appropriate to label Canada as a multiparty democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.0.103 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Burma

Burma is listed as nonpartisan (i.e. - no political parties, but has elections). However, the country is effectively a single-party government since the government only runs candidates who agree with the ruling military council. (Also, the correct name in this context is Myanmar since Burma is used to refer to the previous democratic government, and Myanmar refers to the ruling military council.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.8.140 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" NOT a country

"Northern Cyprys" is a self-proclaimed community created after the illegal invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces in 1974 and it's occupation until the present day. It is considered to be illegal by United Nations' resolutions and it is only recognized by Turkey (which committed the illegal act).

Please don't make the same mistake again by listing it as a country. Thank you. Gunner0095 (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus should be included as a de facto state, in that despite international law it operates separately from the Republic of Cyprus and has it's own political institutions, there should probably be a separate section for de facto states and another for autonomous and dependant territories. Charles Essie (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Coalitions in presidential countries

First of all, we should have to distinguish between electoral alliances and ruling coalitions.

Even more when talking about countries with full-presidential systems, as the President is the only depositary of the executive power, and remains so even if the "coalition" breaks up at any time during his/her fixed-period mandate (i.e. Brazil).

But even in the case that an apparent strong coalition is ruling a Presidential country (i.e. Chile), the definition of it is tenous: is it an alliance when an ally names the Vice-President? when it has members in the cabinet? when its parlamentaries generally back government proposals?

Maybe this questions can help to think again about the whole organization of this table (specially the "ruling party/coalition" column) which is not very consistent.

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Political parties in Latin America

http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/politicalparties/ The University of Texas at Austin listed info about them WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Croatia

Just to let you know that the party mentioned on the article is no longer the leading one. Croatia recently held the election and the new leading party/coalition is now Kukuriku coalition. You may want to edit that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.110.18 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is that??

Is it an article? No. It is a can of bugs. Chechnya is never a country, and even if it's considered to be, where is Ingushetia, Dagestan and other "territories" with "independence movements"? Where is Abkhasia, South Ossetia and err... Texas? Where are reliable sources besides those unproven explanations with "usually considered", "de-facto..." and other weasel-wording? All in all, why does this page still exist?!--213.208.170.194 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of total current parties?

It would be nice to have statistics for the total number of current parties for each countries for comparison reasons.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.174.6 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is tremendously flawed.

This article needs a complete revamp, it is tremendously out of date and inaccurate and includes several places that aren't countries. (Guantanamo Bay, seriously?) I think it should limited to sovereign states, de facto states, and autonomous or dependent territories. Charles Essie (talk)

I'm in agreement. The premise may be well intended, but it's another one of 'those' articles which is reliant on updating time-sensitive information, yet its history reveals that there is very little contributor traffic (other than conspicuously tendentious editing). The tighter the criteria (or perhaps just criterion) for the scope, the more likely it is that watchers can pick up on changes in a timely manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

TITLE of article

While I agree that the article title isn't necessarily as WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE as it could be, I consider "List of countries by ruling political party" to be a worse WP:TITLE, Szqecs. As it stands, the title doesn't really meet with 'naturalness', but that's essentially down to the need to use 'list of' as the initial descriptor. If there is a potentially better title for this list, I think it should be discussed here before moving the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing issues

Do you guys think that the article still needs to be rewritten, because that is one of the issues marked on the page? Is the article up to date, and should we actually add more sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzrockso (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom is NOT a country but four countries that constitute a Kingdom

Each of the member countries of the U.K. should be given a subsection for this article. I'll have a go at fixing this, but if anyone is better at coding this. please help!

Dava4444 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

loving the new format

the new format is amazing especially on mobile (which i am currently using). the last format was clunky and confusing imo. whoever changed it, thank you! JackyTheChemosh (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Polish ruling parties needs to be changed in the future

Hello, I am pretty sure that Poland's ruling parties need to change at some point, since the Civic Coalition (Poland) is now in power (Because Donald Tusk is now the prime minister of Poland), not the Law and Justice (since they can't form a government and don't hold a majority in parliament).

I am not sure if Donald Tusk formed a government yet, but I am pretty sure it'll happen soon. CommunityNetworkWizard (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)