And it will fail due to the current voting system. CPG Grey has a great explainer on why there will only ever be 2 political parties under the current system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
It is so wild that your country is beholden to either one of two private organisations. What if one of them (e.g. the Republican party) goes totally off the rails? There is basically no mechanism to wholesale replace them because the inertia is too great.
This is only a problem because the president is an elected office, if it was appointed by the legislature and a 50% majority or coalition is required to form a government like modern parliamentary systems it would not be an issue.
Forgetting what could have been, a third party does not need to win the president's office or even have a presidential candidate. A handful of senate seats and a dozen or so house seats are enough to make a huge difference. It will essentially be the tie-breaker or "dampner" party that prevents extremists from wrecking havoc like they are now. Think of it as having a party of Joe Manchin's without the selling out to big coal part.
Not having a presidential candidate at all prevents voters from voting on party lines. They should also prevent the option where you check one box and that means you vote for only one party for all candidates. If you want to do that, do it one by one.
Also, I have a solution for gerrymandering: split a state into a square grid where the dimnensions are set based on a false assumption of equal population distribution. Then adjust the size of squares with less population than the presumed popularion under equal distribution by merging them with a similarly apportioned square segments of a neighboring square with the least population. The result would be a somewhat fairly divided grid where divisions are made by the algorithm and nothing else. Census adjusted of course every few years. What is wrong with this idea? Squares will have less people than others but the difference between them is minimized. The number of house seats depends on the number of squares(or rather square derived parcels).
> ...a third party does not need to win the president's office or even have a presidential candidate. A handful of senate seats and a dozen or so house seats are enough to make a huge difference.
How is this not the same problem? Are there a bunch of states that have better voting mechanisms for their federal representatives?
In some states it is always landslide win for one party, basically a one party system for some districts because the other side is always too extreme. People can vote for the guy they like the least for president and the guy they like the most for legislative seats because they address issues most relevant to their district.
Yes. The mathematics make zero sense for a third party in the United States. But, I think Bernie Sanders showed that it is at least viable to form a wing in an existing party and have an effect on the platform even if your preferred party candidate loses. I think this is what the green party needs to do: become a wing of the democratic party. And I think anyone who wants to have a political voice in the U.S. needs to either work to change how we vote and how our representatives are selected (good luck with that), or work within one of the two parties in some way.
30 years ago a third party led the polls during the summer [1]. It all exploded after that, but I think that it shows that there is a possibility for a third to have an actual chance, although all the stars need to align. 30 years is a long time ago, but I think that the media landscape now is considerably easier for a third party than it was then (easier direct access to voters, national news intake is spread over more sources), and the current assumed candidates (biden & trump) unpopularity in the next presidential election seem to favor the possibility of a third party.
It might not be a probability, but I think it's a possibility.
I remember, but that wasn't really a third-party. That was just Ross Perot. I do think the two parties are slightly vulnerable to a strong enough, and rich enough, candidate surrounded by a cult of personality, but even in this case it would have been wiser had Perot simply challenged for the Republican nomination like Trump (another outsider) did 24 years later. He probably could have ousted Bush, and he really might have a won the presidency that way.
If en marche didn't win in france that would just have been one guy. Every party seems to be just one guy until it actually gains enough momentum an power to grow outside of that person and has to build an organization that survives them.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoAnYQZrNrQ
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhVR7gFMKNg