Not sure if this is more elections or GD.
We bemoan that there is no third party but the fact is that except for the Republican Party (and that’s because of the Civil War) the history of third parties in the U.S. is either large success over a short time (Bull Moose Party, Wallace getting 46 EV in 1968) or small successes over long time (Reform Party in Minnesota, Progressive Party in Vermont). So what would it take for a party to be a significant factor in Congress or in many states? For significant factor in Congress lets say that it is enough third party seats to force a coalition House or Senate (the only time that has happened was the 1849-1851 House). State significance may be a bit more nebulous. The idea is that the significance of the third party is not limited to only 1 or 2 states.
My ideas
Centrist. I think history has shown that those third parties that play to the fringe are the traditional 2-4% per election or get folded back into the party like the Tea [del]Bagger[/del] Party Party.
All-inclusive. I’m talking to you Republican Party. I’m tired of being told that I’m not a true Republican because I happen to believe in pro-choice and SSM. I think the Democrats get this right in that as long as you subscribe to a few core beliefs you are a Dem despite where you stand on relatively minor issues.
Fiscally responsible – both at state and Federal level. Let’s face it. The Dems want to balance the budget by raising spending and the Pubs want to balance the budget by lowering taxes. It is all a quagmire with no comprehensive idea about how spending and taxes need to work together to have a reasonable budget. Maybe we need to return to federalism or maybe a Constitutional amendment that links spending and revenue (not exactly a balance budget amendment but a protection against raising taxes 10% then raising spending 15%).
Small steps. A third party is not going to get a president elected in 2016. The party needs to focus on state legislature and local races and a few HoR seats. Then after few elections/successes try for Governor and Federal Senators.
Money. That’s the fuel. Without it, no third party is going anywhere. I think it takes a non-crazy Ross Perot/Donald Trump level money mark to get it off the ground and keep it afloat while the party gains traction. Bill Gates could do it if he were so inclined…
Centrism. Absolutely right. A party that positions itself to the right or left of both major parties just takes votes away from those parties, whereas a centrist party can draw voters from both parties. Besides, the two major parties already go as far left or right as they can get away with and still win elections. And they’ve got it calibrated to a fine point, which is why the country is divided 50-50.
The Reform Party did as well as it did because they had a different, popular position on three issues the major parties did not address adequately:
a) good government reforms
b) the deficit
c) trade(both parties were for free trade mostly, the Reform party was protectionist).
Has to avoid being hijacked by all the disaffected fringe groups. This was the undoing of the Reform party. Anytime a third party, or even a movement, gains some traction, all the weirdos descend upon it to try to get their voice heard.
And yes, it would help to not have a single charismatic guy at its head. I don’t think it matters if it starts out small or not. A third party shouldn’t focus on the Presidency, but it should at least run someone, for publicity if nothing else.
I’ve always thought that the Libertarian Party could become a centrist party. Moderate libertarianism polls well, but as long as they are far to the left of the Democrats on social issues and far to the right of the Republicans on economic issues they’ll be a 1% party. If instead they adopted the Democrats’ positions on social issues and the GOP’s positions on economic issues(minus the supply side idiocy) they’d be 100% mainstream and appeal to a larger group of voters. I think Rand Paul, although a Republican, is pretty close to this positioning now.