Talk:Bipartisanship

Comments

Truly I don't think it's right for different people who believe in two different things to join together, because it will cause more violence in the world. It's really a question to have bipartisan system in order to serve people better. second, every 2 years every house reps,6 years senator also almost every year local gov official. No time, concentrated effort for the citizen of the u.s.a.what about the presidential election? One of the most important independent spirits is equality. The current voting system is not adequate to reflect all the voter's rights.

Removed the reference to Canada as we currently have three political parties - Conservative, Liberal and NDP (Center, Left and Lefter). Urbanriot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Tagging NPOV. This article has a distinct liberal slant (one which I happen to agree with, but nonetheless a slant). 76.201.147.205 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the discussion is about. Do y'all disagree with the definition of the word bipartisan btw not bypartisan which the first writer specified. If so then write about that, not all this other garbage. Please either get this word defined only not a bunch of partisan retoric crazy talk.

Dujulan --70.140.121.177 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above writer may be referring to items such as the paragraph from the Huffington Post article which is not based in fact, but is an editorial opinion slamming Republicsns. That has no place on an encyclopedic site and should ABSOLUTELY be deleted, just as it should if they had linked a bash of bipartisanship from a Republican perspective. The paragraph is cited as a political analysts observation of bipartisanship but is actually just an attempt to insult Republicans (and in truth, Democrats too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSG314 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is starting to get cluttered. It needs to be divided into suggestions. I will do this in a couple days if it hasn't been fixed by then, but we need to have this sorted out. I propose the following sections be made in this layout: General Information Advocacy -In the United States Criticisms

As of now, the article is needlessly US-centric, and is getting very messy. I recommend all quotes either be removed, moved to references, or moved to Wikiquote.

Omniferous (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree about clutter and need for sections. As I wrote on your talk page, bipartisanship is a phenomenon of two-party systems of which there are only a few in the world, such as in the US, so I think it's appropriate to have a US focus. Or else possibly the article should be renamed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what we would rename the page to, but I agree that the page does need to talk about the United States, being one of the most obvious examples. Still, while I think it is reasonable to use US-related references as evidence, I think most of the stuff on the page that is specifically talking about the US could go in its own section. Note that I added the globalize tag not because I thought we addressed the United States too much, but because most of the definition was comprised of United States information, rather than viewing the subject impartially as an idea, then applying it to the United States. For instance, I think the first two paragraphs are great as-is, but the third is completely unique to US history. Another good example of this would be the following sentence from the article: "After the U.S. election of 2010, with sizeable gains by Republicans in the House and Senate, analyst Charles Babington in the Associated Press suggested that both parties remained far apart on major issues such as immigration and Medicare while there may be chances for agreement about lesser issues such as electric cars, nuclear power, and tax breaks for businesses; Babington was not optimistic about chances for bipartisanship on major issues in the next few years." Obviously the article does not mean Malta can't have bipartisanship just because the United States can't get along.

Similarly, it is also possible to view bipartisanship in the context of a multi-party system, but that is usually in advocacy of a two-party system (e.g.: the article suggests major parties in Britain have been known to align to put down smaller parties, effectively turning things into a two-party race or vote), which has the same disadvantages as a two-party system itself, which can be found on the proper page. Omniferous (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with your views. I think you should rework the article along the lines you suggest. I may try to add stuff later. When working on a revamp of the article two-party system, I found there were two basic views, like you said above: the strict two-party (in which third party candidates have no realistic chance, whether by structure or habit), and the sense of two main parties which dominate, but others have varying degrees of peripheral influence. I'm not sure which view prevails overall but I guess we need to be aware of both senses of the term. But this impacts bipartisanship too -- like, if two dominant parties work together, is that bipartisanship? I guess we should go by what the mainstream view is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

US text-centric-issue

I'm removing the "US-centric" tag for this reason: bipartisanship applies to situations where there are two-party systems; and there are few two-party systems around the world, and the US is one of the few examples (see Two party system. So, it seems reasonable to focus on the US and US politics when talking about bipartisanship; this issue doesn't play out to the same extent in multiparty systems. So, to criticize this article as being "US focused" doesn't make sense; it would be like tagging the article "Mississippi River" with a similar tag because there were too many mentions of the US. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011

Two party system has been expanded since 2011, with many examples of other two-party systems around the world. It can be expanded further, as can this article, so I'm restoring the tag. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How and where is the term used?

I would like to know whether or not bipartisanship (or related words, as bipartisan) actually and more than sporadically is used by notable sources for references to phenomena outside the US. (@The Mighty Glen: I'm not asking whether it should be used, but whether it is used.) I see the term nonpartisan (or equivalent terms in e.g. Swedish) now and then, but bipartisan only in US political contexts. If it is chiefly used with references to US contexts, then I think this should be mentioned in the lead.

I also would like to know to what extent it is used as a synonym to or replacing nonpartisan(ship) in US use. All the examples given in the article concern political activity, where Democrats and Republicans in their rôle as politicians have taken an essential part. On the other hand, I sometimes see other use elsewhere, as in the article Heterodox Academy, which starts

Heterodox Academy is a bipartisan advocacy group of professors which was founded in 2015 to counteract narrowing of viewpoints on college campuses..

Reading on, this indeed seems not to be an initiative by politicians; and I strongly suspect that it also involves professors and other 'academicians' who do not primarily consider themselves as either Democrats or Republicans. I fully agree with calling e.g. Freedom House bipartisan, but if the section Bipartisanship#Usage is correct and reasonably exhaustive, then probably some other term should be better for the Heterodox Academy. JoergenB (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional criticisms of bipartisanship missing from article

This article does a poor job of fleshing out the various criticisms of bipartisanship that have popped up ion recent years, at least with regard to the American political system. Here are some additional criticisms that have been expressed in by notable individuals in the past (about the U.S. bipartisanship as a concept) that should be added to the article (appropriately sourced of course):

• While Bipartisanship may be an ideal goal, it's not a realistic one, given certain current political realities (at least in the U.S.; see the other criticisms below for why). As such, politicians should not waste too much energy on it.
• True bipartisanship should mean that both sides equally compromise and work together on an issue but in reality too heavy focus on bipartisanship by one politician or political party ends allowing the other party to take advantage of the situation and secure a deal that is heavily tilted in their favor, while falsely claiming true bipartisanship.
• Despite voters expressing support for bipartisanship in concept, when it actually comes time to vote, they rarely punish strictly/mostly partisan politicians. Thus why should you settle for a compromise of there is a no political consequences if go home empty handed. Also, it's argued that the number of voters favoring a middle ground/moderate/compromise position on many issue has shrunk in recent decades meaning that one has more to loose compromising too much too often. Part of this has to deal with the fact that fewer districts in the U.S. competitive/swing districts compared with the past, thus there are much fewer politicians who need to worry about bipartisanship given there is less chance of swing voters swinging the election against them for lack of bipartisanship or a promise of greater bipartisanship by their opponent (non-swing voters seem to favor strong adherence to certain key ideological/pet issues more then bipartisanship/moderation) and see compromise on those issue being just as bad as given in completely.
• Bipartisanship assumes that politicians getting things done is a good thing even when it involves significant compromise. Libertarian and other anti-big government types would argue that doing nothing may be better in such cases where you can't get what you really want then a compromise that involves given too much in terms of your principles/beliefs away to your opponents just to say the accomplished something.
• The criticisms of concept of bipartisanship is that it makes certain assumptions similar to those made in praise of moderate positions and centrism (centrism as the assumed ideal is something of which a number of critics have taken issue with).

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition & Practice

Curious how this term seems to reappear in headlines when the congress would like the public to believe there to be a beneficial compromise between parties when, in truth, it seems, both have made little progress for public good but rallied together for corporate interests. There is the 'Bipartisan Policy Center' (biparticanpolicy.org) which seems to highlight many neoliberal and neoconservative battle buddies who now join hands to coordinate efforts against the American people's efforts to achieve medical care and clean energy. This site is very proud to list many government 'servants' who are now lobbyist. It shows photos of flag waving, throws out words like 'PATRIOT' and lists career opportunities (currently available) such as 'Major Gifts Manager'. As serendipitous that this might seem to some, it strikes this non-Washington, non-media, average American as exactly why most of us who lead such lives have distrust and dislike for people 'like that'. This article is biased. It has a strong corporate right lean. I have little doubt it was sourced from exactly the same sources which, according to Pew, have also moved Americans to Right- add independent media has been squashed or eliminated- which quiets any dissent. Noah Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' might provide a useful tool. QuietChickenChaser (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)