Why are the recognised national parties split up between "Major Recognized national parties" & "Other recognized national parties". Since the ECI only classifies them together as "Recognized national parties", perhaps it should be the same way in this template as well? Any thoughts?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Soman (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

- I agree with soman and Aditya Krishnan. This wikipedia template seems to violating ECI norms. This portion "major national parties" seems to contradictory to wikipedia's own article onList of recognised political parties in India & the official [| ECI REPORT 2007]. Hence the editorial majority here seems to against it, so as per the norms of GENERAL CONSENSUS, I am modifying it to its previous status.
Please discuss on this talk page first before reverting.
Regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that the 2009 general election can be considered completed, I suggest that the Third Front be moved to "Former National coalitions". I believe this should be done since some parties in this front either have joined UPA or are supporting the UPA. Neither have the Third Front leaders have made any mention about the Front still existing, nor have they been seen on a common platform since the day results were declared. If this front is rejuvenated at anytime in the future, they can be moved again. Any thoughts?--
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 10:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

-I've moved it to former national coalitions, but if it will be rejuvenated again, we have to move it again to current national coalitions.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that the parties except INC & BJP, all the other regional parties have there influence in two to three states but national parties such as INC & BJP do dominate almost all states or their influence is whole nation. Which is why i think they must be separated, you certainly can't compare SP, RJD or CPI with INC and BJP. There dominance is far more than any other parties.--Kkm010^as© 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-This seems to be your opinion kkm, Election Commission of India, dont think so. And it yet not demarcated any national political party, on grounds of "MAJOR" or "MINOR".
Plz. refrain from playing with official status report, this is against the law of India, and the guidelines issued by the ECI.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Viplovecomm here. There are three different formal categories in the ECI registration. The main reason why to use these categories is that it becomes less arbitrary. India currently has seven national political parties, and there is no reason to say that the 'national parties' category is too large to be easily manageable. CPI(M), RJD and BSP are by no means 'minor' parties in Indian politics. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Look like I said earlier a party whose influence is across the nation and who has ruled, now in India only two party have ruled successfully so far one is INC & BJP. Not a single party so has been able to ruled so successfully. I really don't think so its worth putting them in same category.--Kkm010^as© 10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you forget about 1996-1998. Other national parties are also crucial when it comes to govt formation. --Soman (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My dear friend slight wrong info they fail to rule total 5 years mandate eventually it brokeup. which INC & BJP done successfully. No party can match them they dominate the whole India.--Kkm010^as© 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In what sense is that a relevant criteria? BJP had a gov't that lasted 13 days, did that make it less of a national party? There are major parties in many countries that never took part in government. CPI(M), for example, was offered the prime ministerial post, but declined. As for size of electorate, INC obtained 28.55% of the votes in 2009, BJP 18.8%, BSP 6.17%. NCP, 2.04%, etc. The fact of the matter is that India does not have a two-party system and that massive national coalitions (1996 style) have become a permanent feature of Indian politics. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you India is multi party system. But like i said if you can show a party apart from INC & BJP who has ruled in India for total 5 years and there presence is in every Indian states then i would refrain from rv ur edits. BJP in this case do have ruled for total 5 years. And far as CPI is concerned whose position is only in three states certainly doesn't get a national tag not at all. You said CPI do got a chance but was declined its quite natural that they aren't capable to rule. My dear friend its quite evident that INC & BJP influence is far more than an other party despite India being a multi party system.--Kkm010^as© 05:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Learn to separate between CPI(M) and CPI. And CPI(M) is not limited to three states, they are active in all states except Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. In several states outside the ones they govern, they do have a notable influence. --Soman (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-Look Wikipedia is a place of scholary importance, SCHOOL GOING KIDS, uses its content for their projects or so. If kkm010 is introducing his POV then he has some reason behind it. To confuse the people. ECI is a autonomous body of Government of India, Even it did not discriminate among National Parties on "Major" and "Minor" line. KKM010 is forcing his pov, and disrespecting the other editors.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. This request does not belong here. Prad2609 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC) The template for political parties and not specifically for Indian political parties has a good representation of numbers that a party holds in the equivalents of India's Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Can a similar indicator be added to this template specifically for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha? Prad2609 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)