Impossible. Too much of America identifies strongly Red Team or Blue Team. They cannot accept the idea of more.
You're looking at it incorrectly. The two party system has little or nothing to do with party affiliation, loyalty, or team spirit. It has only to do with the way elections are decided. In our case, we have district voting in which the candidate with the most votes wins (which doesn't always even mean a simple plurality). In this situation, a two party system is a mathematical inevitability. People can't be blamed for it; elections are the simplest game theory we all play. On an unrelated topic, I'm not sure a multiparty platform is any better, because in the end a coalition had to be formed in a parliamentary system, so even though there can be many parties, there still is a ruling group and an opposition. Any democracy becomes a de facto two party rule, even if the alliances are more fluid. The result, however, is similar. It's not as if Europe has avoided our economic woes.
I definitely think that a good third party candidate could win almost any municipal election with the right campaigning. Hearing the word impossible just makes me think that people are tapped out and don't believe in the system anymore. I think there is so much latent need for new candidates and new ideas that the right platform could catapult a third party. Like I said before, I'm not talking about a third party with a different ideology than the democrats or republicans; I'm talking about a third party that runs on the platform of harnessing the collective knowledge of their constituents.
Whose collective knowledge are you speaking of? Those who froth at the mouth whenever their sacred cows are even remotely questioned. Or are you talking about politics by algorithm. I'm sure public opinion and knowledge can be optimized, so those who want certain results get them. Bernays and his ideological children in public relations and marketing (with demographers, political scientists and operatives, and big data prophets mixed in) could serve up all the common knowledge necessary so one could govern however they wished. It's not that people don't believe in the system, it's that the system doesn't believe in the people. Like I said before, I'm not talking about a third party with a different ideology than the democrats or republicans; I'm talking about a third party that runs on the platform of harnessing the collective knowledge of their constituents.
>> I'm not sure a multiparty platform is any better
I live in a country without an entrenched two-party system, so I feel qualified to comment here.
The difference to me is this : if I were a Green in the USA, I would have no voice, because my party is not R or D. As a Green in NZ, I DO have a voice, because even though it is small (~10-12 percent usually), it is still big enough to make a difference in the coalition negotiations. If a bigger party needs the Green's support to rule, as they often do, they must throw the Greens a policy bone now and then, which they do. Smaller parties have a smaller voice, but it's not a silent voice.
The mistake your making here is that if you vote in an election in the US, that your voice really matters. You could vote, r, d, mickey mouse, or count chocula, and in the end, the only voices that matter are the ones writing the checks (the Kock brothers, Wall St, the Silicon Alley sharks, etc.)
This is a product of the two-party system. The two parties serve to give the appearance of debate and choice, but you get no say, in all those things they agree upon. As Chomsky has said, there's really only one party in the USA, the business party.
I envy wherever you live where that's not the case. As far as I've seen it has a LOT to do with it. I'm not sure if multiparty is better but at this point I think I'd settle for different. The two party system has little or nothing to do with party affiliation, loyalty, or team spirit.
You can do whatever you feel. For most of the people in the country, even the choice between two is null and void, given how elections proceed. How many seats are even competitive in any given election cycle? 10%? Maybe? I don't know the exact number, but choice is an illusion.