Talk:List of political parties in Denmark

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Denmark Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The nature of this list must be defined.

'Save the Bears' is mentionned. The party is widely unkown in Denmark, as it is a local phenomenon in

I think it would be better to only include nation wide parties on this page, and make another page for local lists in Demnark - of which there are many.

Read my comment on Talk:Minority Party (Denmark) Medico80 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to keep the constitutent parties of the Red-Green Alliance on this page. Before I organized it this way they were mentioned under "Minor parties (nationwide, but not running for parliamentary elections)" or "Defunct parties" without any mention of the relationship between these parties and the Enhedslisten, and that members of those parties hold seats in parliament. This way the relationship is explained better. C mon 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this arguments is that the constituent parties of the RGA do not have any influence over the RGA anymore, and it is thus factual incorrect to describe the RGA as an alliannce between these parties. The RGA has developped from being an electoral alliance to now being a proper party. Some of the parties (SAP and DKP) does still exist and have som activity. The others are either defunct (KAP) or has transformed itself into an association (VS). Bertilvidet 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll settle for the way it is currently organized. C mon 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm D, J, K, M, and M, are not in the Folketing, so are the like supposed be in this... ting/artikel/list???

I am in process of merging, please refrain from editing.Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is completed, not musch to add, most of the stuff is in the specific party articles. -Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the following unsourced material from the article as it looks to me like a personal analysis. It concerns the new political party, New Alliance.

Not technically represented in the Folketing, but the leaders of the party, who left other parties, are members of the Folketing, albeit written as unafiliated, until the party is elected.

I would very much like to see a reference that supports this interpretation. The party is not yet cleared by the Ministry of the Interior to actually stand for parliament, but this is a detail since the Ministry's task is simply to verify if 20,000 Danes have stated that they wish the party should run (not yet the case), and secondly that the party name doesn't present any problems. But the constitution of Denmark doesn't even mention political parties, on the contrary, § 56 states: Folketingsmedlemmerne er ene bundet ved deres overbevisning og ikke ved nogen forskrift af deres vælgere. (Members of the Folketing are bound only by their own conviction and not by any instruction from their voters.) so as I see it, Naser Khader can state that he represents whoever he wishes, and I presume that the same must apply for Samuelsen and Seeberg in the European Parliament. Khader would have a problem if an election was called tomorrow as he hasn't got the formalities in place yet, but it appears that all Danish parties recognize the existence of the new party, including its name, and the media will continue to identify him as the chairman of New Alliance. Labelling him unaffiliated with any party seems overly stringent and legalistic to me, it will confuse readers, and Parliament can't make any house rules overruling the Constitution. When the Progress Party splintered, Freedom 2000 was also referred to anywhere on par with the other parties, including in official documents, even if its name was never cleared with the Ministry of the Interior. That's my two cents anyway. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is, as far as I can tell, how it is, right now. NA is not yet recognised as a party, and not elected into the parlament. Officially, Khader is not affiliated with any party in the Folketing. I stand by the paragraf. Even if it is a simplification, it is as precise as you can get, without getting into details. Lordz 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of Parliament disagrees with that definition [1], see the examples of Frank Dahlgaard, Hans Jørgen Iversen, Anne Grete Holmsgaard and the former members of Frihed 2000. They are only listed as "løsgængere" when they personally stated that they didn't belong to any political party. In addition, I've never heard anybody refer to the members of the Radikale Venstre as "løsgængere" between the founding of that party and the first election. I don't recall people referring to Pia Kjærsgaard as a "løsgænger" either when she split the Progress Party in two. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I prefer my original statement, but for all intents and purposes, Khader does represent NA. My original statement was correct, but I can hear that you are not about to give up on your even more simplified version. Lordz 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You simply didn't cite any sources to back up your definition, nor sources to back up why this situation should be different from the Freedom 2000 case. Did you notice that official minutes from sessions in Folketinget referred to Freedom 2000 by that name? If they were listed in Folketingstidende by the name they gave themselves, surely the same applies here. If you have any sources to back up your version up, I'd be interested to see them. Otherwise I'll stick with my interpretation based on the list compiled by www.folketinget.dk, and the constitution's § 56. Khader was unaffiliated for around three hours, but such a brief time span is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the letters in front of the party names, as in their usage in the Danish electoral system? Thanks. --

Good question, even I find these letters very curious... --Checco (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letters determine in which order parties are listed on the ballots. If some of them seem not to relate to the party name at all, that is partially because, at least according to Danish wikipedia, they were originally assigned according to how many seats the party had in the municipal council for Copenhagen municipality (the letters were introduced for municipal elections in the 1930s and parliamentary elections in the 1940s), and partially because new parties only have so many available letters to choose from. Hemmingsen 07:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmingsen's explanation is correct, and originally, the list was both shorter and simpler. From 1943 to 1968, Venstre used the letter D, which means that the most important parties used consecutive letters when the system was introduced on a national level (the 1943 elections): A: Social Democrats, B: Radikale Venstre [Social Liberals], C: Conservatives, D: Venstre [Liberals], E: Retsforbundet [Justice Party]. You can find a fuller list at da:Partibogstav which lists the various letters used by current and former parties. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the "sortable table" not in fact sort? -- Picapica (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is currently divided into three categories: the ones that simply doesn't have parliamentary representation, local parties and marginal parties. This makes sense, as the local parties doesn't have the same kind of influence as nation-wide parties. But there is also a difference between the parties listed in the 'Parties without parliamentary representation (in the Folketing or European Parliament)'-section. Christian Democrats, The New Right, Schleswig Party and National Party all have some sort of representation in Danish politics, while the rest on the list does not. I propose the 'marginal parties' is changed to include all parties without any kind of representation. This would remove Progress Party, Social Balance and all parties after Pirate Party. This change would make it clear which political parties, without parliamentary representation, actually has significant influence in Denmark. This would be the four parties I mentioned (K, D, S, N). Kaffe42 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of marginal parties is way too excessive. It is a list of registred party names and not a list of actually active parties. That means that if someone goes on here to find information about a certain small party they would have a hard time doing so. The first entry on the list "Et samlet land" does not give any results when I Google it. The list also includes duplicates (Christian Democrats), youth wings (Young Alliance to mention one) and local parties (Cannabis Party is a local party in Copenhagen Municipality, Guldborgsundlisten is in Guldborgsund). The lists of defunct parties are also very cluttered. Several parties were never represented anywhere (Borgerligt Centrum) or are duplicates (Christian People's Party = Christian Democrats). Others have been placed seemingly randomly, such as the Free Conservatives which did actually have representation in the Landsting for around 15 years. In my opinion the article requires major cleanup and is currently not a very useful article at all. I propose deleting the sections 'marginal parties' and 'defunct parties', and then build them back up. The current state of the article does more harm than good. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]