Since 2007 there has been consistent high support for establishing a third party - its 58% in a new poll. Greens, various conservative alternatives and Libertarians get little support, and noone seems able to create a viable Social Democratic party like NDP in Canada, but is it possible to create a viable centrist reform party between Dems and Pubs?
Is it just frustration when voters say they want a third party, or would they actually like a (moderate) alternative?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/poll-58-percent-of-americans-want-a-third-political-party/
I agree that more alternatives might be attractive, but it won't happen. Not because the Greens are naive tree huggers or because the Libertarians are stoners and gun-nuts. It's just that our electoral system is set up to favor the evolution of a two-party system. It doesn't have to be the Democrats and the Republicans, and I suspect that from time to time over very long-range cycles there will be upheavals, but two strong parties will always come out on top. You'd have to remodel the US constitution to change that.
In political science studies, this phenomenon was formerly known as Duverger's Law, after Maurice Duverger who published a major study in 1955. Unfortunately, Du verger's study was very general and it doesn't really adequately explain the peculiarity of the US "winner take all" system. The history learning site does a pretty good job trying to explain it in layman's terms, and you can use Google Scholar to come up with more detailed, peer-reviewed historical explanations specific to the US system.
While I freely admit to voting for third-party candidates from time to time, I also have to admit that I'm comfortable with a two-party system, especially when I compare the alternative, a one party system. Egypt before the Arab Spring or Germany in 1940 or modern-day China don't appeal much to me. If Americans really want a multiparty system, then they're going to have to revamp the constitution. I don't think there's much appetite for that, despite claims that it would be nice to have alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.
I am quite familiar with old Maurice (I am educated in history and pol sci after all) and his opinions do apply more to the US than anywhere else, since the modern counter argument that its mostly the party system which creates the voting system cant really be applied to the US given the age and sacrosanct status of your Constitution + electing President/Governors directly reinforces the pattern a lot more than a Westminster system would. However Duvergers point was that FPTP would act to 1) delay the emergence of a new political force, not that it would prevent it and 2) it would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force when a new one arrived. So he doesn't rule out new parties, just say that they are hard to establish and would likely marginalize one of the existing two if they became successful.
All that said you got the effect of money, ballot access, media bias, adaptability of existing parties etc. Still its interesting that there is this consistent majority in the polls for the need of a third force.
