Talk:Politics of Vermont

Template?

I was hoping to insert a template like Minnesota has, listing it's officers. But it's an uploaded template so that no one can fool with it. (Not a bad idea, once it's solid). I don't know how to download a copy nor to reproduce one. Can someone help?Student7 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pew Report

We need a place somewhere in the Vermont panoply for some more details from the prestigidous, non-partisan Pew Report which gave Vermont a B- for 2008, not a bad mark. It has some real inconvenient truths in there (for either party) and the future however! Student7 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorg

Tried to move stuff down from Vermont article. Did not delete stuff there which needs it badly. This probably needs more reorg.Student7 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossing double lines

A judge ruled that double lines in a road are "merely advisory" a few years ago. Can't give a ticket for crossing them if that is the only "violation". Can't find reference to this. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of candidates

WP:N focuses on "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." As for content of article it says: "They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[6] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." So let's make sure we are discussing the same thing.

It's too early to say these people are NOT notable. And more references can/will be provided showing their names were mentioned in a number of publications. At least one had a whole article devoted to them since this first put up; maybe both by now. But given I have to get ready for the big east coast storm/possible power outages, may not get around to it for a couple days. Obviously over time if not much comes of their campaigns, their names should be removed. But it might be a bit POV to do so immediately. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia allows the mention of people and companies with articles. They don't need the publicity, therefore it is not WP:SPAM. But it is WP:PR and spam to promote individuals (and companies) with no articles.

To summarize, if you need the publicity here, you can't have it! If you don't need the publicity, we'll be glad to give it to you!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Topic

A lot of this stuff is non WP:TOPIC. It is about Elections in Vermont and belongs in that article. Elections is what people do (not Politics). The articles stop at the election. At which time "Politics" start. It is okay to say, "X Party passed Y legislation which was unpopular and they were voted out of office in the subsequent election." With references. But only the roughest election results are generally necessary here. Leave that for the Election article. This is about Act 250, Act 60, that sort of thing. Student7 (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved elections stuff to elections article. We are not a democracy. Our representatives conduct politics on our behalf (we hope). This is a record of what they have done. Not bar arguments or television arguments. That's "Elections" mostly. Student7 (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostly not about politics

I expected to find a discussion of electoral politics and the exercise of political power in the formulation of legislation. Instead, what I see here is mostly a disorganized discussion of statutes. In my opinion, this article should not exist in Wikipedia, as written. It doesn't even conform to the definition of politics, found at the page on the subject: "Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods is employed in politics, which include promoting its own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to international level." User:HopsonRoad 00:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of article

I have drafted a reorganization of this article with additional, more pertinent material in my sandbox. I plan to move that material across to this article on or about 1 January 2014, pending input about the advisability of doing so. Please leave your comments here. I have moved most of the content of the existing article into appropriate locations. Even so, it is my opinion that the content is poorly written. Note that I have commented out some content that I feel is inappropriate for WP, e.g. a promotional website for a public nudity group. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks okay except for stuff about political parties which, IMO, should be under elections. People don't create laws, but they do create, through elections, political parties. Vermont helped create the Whig party (for example) out of distaste for Jackson. What effect that had on national policy (politics) remains obscure!  :)

Most of the rest belongs under "Elections in..." since it involves campaigning, balloting, etc.

Allow me to mention that Elections are now confined to the past ten or so, since that is withing the memory of living editors. If that ever gets expanded to 110 articles and covers all elections, you really aren't going to want them spilling over into the article about Politics. It just causes too many problems. It confuses people as to what is Elections and what is Politics. They are sufficiently confused by television now.

For example, is ObamaCare a 1) National Disaster that will result in the demise of the Democratic Party or 2) A wonderful thing. And people will have forgotten all about any problems by the next election? I suspect 2. The media is jammed with headlines about it and it really makes very little difference to anyone right now, one way or the other. Just a way to fill air time and increase listeners. We have nothing to do with it one way or the other. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Student7. Are you suggesting that there be another section, named "Elections..."? Isn't that what Political party strength in Vermont does? There are a number of political parties that seldom succeed at the polls, but they are part of the political landscape. Politics is in large measure how people persuade a majority of voters or legislators to vote for candidates or legislation. I'll wait for other input, bring the article across and let normal editing commence. User:HopsonRoad 02:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Elections in Vermont is the article that should contain "politicking" (which is not Politics, however!). And no, politics is what successful candidates do after they are elected. They must often compromise with each other to obtain their goals to create true laws that are actually put into execution. The rest (Elections in) is mere (sorry) twaddle. Politicians trying not to offend any important group while they are speaking. That is campaigning, but often called "politicking" by the media. Student7 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow you, Student7. Wiktionary defines politicking as "The act of engaging in politics, or in political campaigning", which suggests both the election and legislative phases of politics. Additionally, the same source defines politics as 1. A methodology and activities associated with running a government, an organization, or a movement. 2. The profession of conducting political affairs. 3. Political maneuvers or diplomacy between people, groups, or organizations, especially involving power, influence or conflict. So, I feel that it's appropriate to mention political parties in both this article and in Elections in Vermont. I suggest that this article discuss the role of parties in shaping legislation and that the elections article discuss the case that each party makes to the electorate. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Great improvement!

I think the subsection "Political parties in Vermont" should be moved to "Elections in Vermont."

Yes, English is sloppy. We all live with it. But we don't have to allow it to slop over to the encyclopedia. "Politicking" is not Plato's "Politics." Well beneath it! "Elections" covers that sort of thing much better.

Greek has three words for "love." The English definition is sloppy and imprecise. I'm not so familiar with Greek that I can tell you what Plato used for campaigning, electioneering, over-promising the electorate, and drumming up votes. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't "politicking!" Student7 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, Student7! I ask for your patience in keeping a governance-oriented "Political parties in Vermont" section here, because there is a role that parties play outside of elections, which I haven't had time to develop. I do concur that to the party organization part should move or be copied across in the foreseeable future.

For example, the entry "In 1999, five moderate Democratic legislators, called "Blue Dogs", joined with Republicans to pass Democratic but fiscally conservative governor Howard Dean's plans for an income tax cut.[8]" is found in Elections in Vermont, but since it's about legislation, it belongs here. It shows the role of political parties in legislation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur on Blue Dogs. Quite right. This is the gist of real "Politics" IMO. Not often so clearly identified.

I think "List of statutes by title" should be moved, as necessary to flesh out Vermont Statutes Annotated. And if merging doesn't suit you, suggest just deleting it from here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't advocate merging the list, because it's the same list. I'm fine with pointing there from here. Bear in mind, it's here because it was the organizing principal for the material, reported here. User:HopsonRoad 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Take it back!"

I agree that Take Back Vermont needs to be someplace since there is an article. For me, this is a classic example of campaigning/electioneering that ultimately was unsuccessful. It needs to be in Elections in Vermont, since it was formed to raise money for candidates and to motivate like-minded people to vote. Everything to do with campaigning. Did not succeed and therefore, ultimately had no impact whatever on "politics." Student7 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that it has a place in both articles—here as reaction to legislation, there as part of political campaigning and fund raising—with a different emphasis in each place. The Killington "secession" is another reaction that, by itself, went nowhere but is worth mentioning here because it showed the depth of opposition to legislation. User:HopsonRoad 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think anything grassroots is "Elections.." I agree that Elections accomplish something in a Republic(an) form of government. The voters elect representatives which commit Politics.

"Take back" raised money for Elections.

Killington secession may have helped mitigate the affects of Act 60 with subsequent legislation. But it didn't (couldn't) accomplish anything political because the electorate isn't Government in a Republic. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Someone using an IP address made some unexplained edits at Politics of Vermont. They appeared to contradict the cited sources. Additionally, the editor placed a link to a site that does not "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", per Wikipedia Wikipedia:External links. Nonetheless, the editor shows good-faith interest in the subject, so I hope that with experience he/she can learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

Can we, for starters, agree that this is an encyclopedia, not television where the same thing is said several different ways over many sentences to make sure their (stupid) audience understands? "Every single" = "Every". We don't require two adjectives to modify election. WP:KISS. Student7 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

French Vote?

The material identifying the "French" as largely assimilated came from an existing article French American. Correlating "French" with Democratic voting is like saying:

• Socrates is an Athenian
• Athens voted largely Democratic, therefore
• Socrates voted Democratic.

This is sloppy logic. Correlation is not causation. It's not proof of anything. The source quoted is questionably reliable IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Section was moved to relevant article, Elections in Vermont. Not germane to this article which is, as it should be, mostly about what politicians actually DO, once they are in office. Student7 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're using sloppy logic here and/or making a false assertion. Nobody is suggesting correlation is causation, the causation in question is explicitly stated in multiple sources. Find competing sources. Secondly the sentence or two on French-Canadiens becoming American does not directly relate to the rest of the article, and therefor should be removed and the article suggesting they are conservative does not belong in the article either because it doesn't say in the source this correlates with their electoral habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.157.147 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why this material belongs in Elections in Vermont. If true it would belong there because it directly affects elections.

I have tried talking to the various IPs who are editing. They appear to change IP number, so I don't know if there is one IP or what. I've left at least one message for nearly each IP instance. At least one was received because I got a message chiding me for accusing him of WP:SOCKPUPPETry. It was issued under yet another IP number that has never been used for editing these articles! Student7 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevance/Reclassifying Issue

From what I've gleaned from this article, the majority of this article is really just about legislation in Vermont...So I feel as though we should possibly make a page for this information (Legislation of Vermont), or refocus our attention to issues related to parties, gerrymandering, democratic structure, statistics, etc. UsernameTBD (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, UsernameTBD. I've never liked this title, but felt the content was notable. Unfortunately, there are few examples of the title pattern that you suggest and many more for this pattern. User:HopsonRoad 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are three divisions at this level: Government, Elections, and Politics.

At the lowest level, "Government of.." is what the constitution, as implemented by the legislature and courts, deem it to be. Construed in this manner, there is often little dispute about the content.

"Elections in..." comprise the vote. A number of editors have insisted on including polls prior to the vote. Both are quite suggestive of "voting patterns", what is termed "political acitivity," etc. The only problem at this level is that editors hear television constantly reminding us of the importance on somebody's remarks (campaigning) and assigning it the name of "poltical" or "politicking." What tv wants us to forget is that we elect an "agent" who votes pretty much the way s/he wants (or executes laws the way s/he wants). Most of us live in a Republic. Tv needs to keep selling ads/space, so everything is a "big deal." I thought for awhile there that they were going to suggest that "we the people" recall the NFL commission, seeming to forget that we have absolutely no control over the commissioner at all!

This leaves the final category or "Politics" which is really played in Congress/legislature using bills covering multiple topics in order to get the vote of someone important. Legislation is the final output, at the low level, of these categories, and the most important. The rest is dross. Content, which should be unique to a state, nation, is fairly clear. There are no vague pov "voting patterns" in legislative output. If there are, they can be quickly and succinctly clarified. "With the Whigs dominating the House, they passed...."

Using these three categories with these three definitions avoids a lot of disputes. That is, voting patterns must be tied in some way to "Elections." They cannot mindlessly stand alone which they would do in one of the other two categories. This is particularly noticeable in this article recently with an IP insisting that the "French" (no longer a distinct group BTW) vote Democrat "90% of the time." This is doubtful. But worst of all, if it did belong in this article, so does anything else including the kitchen sink! There is no criteria for containment! The article becomes WP:COATRACK. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)