[magpi3]

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.

[SahAssar]

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.

1: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/us/the-1992-campaign-on-t...

[magpi3]

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.

[SahAssar]

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.