Talk Elections

Just wanted to get this out there.  Many organizations like The Centrist Project and No Labels have really attempted to put forward centrist candidates that can end the partisan bickering, but they have not been able to accomplish it.  Many Americans, despite being independents, can view voting for independents as being simply impossible due to the "wasting the vote" mentality.  Obviously, the duopoly has a large part in this, but what I am thinking is that organizations like TCP need to promote the creation of a centrist party, not just running centrist independents.  Independents would feel more at home and would feel as if they have a place.  A new party could do just this, and I believe that such a party, started and/or supported by bight politicians and/or celebrities would help such a party be lifted off the ground.

Does this sound logical?

Logical. But - very difficult to achieve. Probably that would require some sort of parlamentary system in place of present one with very strong President.

A lot of "independents" are partisans that simply choose not to label themselves as such. Beyond that, you have to deal with the fact that many "centrists", or those whose survey results peg them as centrist, may hold entirely unorthodox views. An example from a few years ago of the way these surveys become skewed is if someone, say, wholeheartedly supports universal healthcare but also despises gay marriage. For the halfwit political scientists that are scoring such a result, it may balance out to "centrist" but reflects neither being moderate, nor matching our typical view of what an "independent" would look like. As such, Perot, who could be all things to all people--both to those on the fringes and to those in the center--is probably far more exemplary of what a good independent candidate would look like than, say, Bloomberg, who manages simply to acquire hate from all sides. If one looks at those ridiculous "who would you have voted for?" threads on this forum, one can find several people of very different ideological persuasions choosing to vote for Perot over Bush and Clinton in 1992. Given the above, proper issue and persona selection are very important. One must both appear to care for "the people" while at the same time disdaining "bureaucrats"; one must embody the popular "radical" ideas of both parties while still appearing to be between them; one must attract both those voters that think "the two major parties are the same!" and those that think "the two major parties are too far apart!"

I do think the two party duopoly is nearing at end, given the current political climate. The question I think, is which one will be the first to go...

With both major parties managing to run very unpopular Presidential candidates last year (and their main party opponents being not much more popular) i consider it possible (and hope for it, to be honest). But it will still take time.

If the third party has an outstanding message about what kind of people need to be appointed to the Supreme Court -- people who are chosen not because of their ideology, even if that ideology is "moderate," but because they are committed to interpreting the Constitution objectively -- you know I'm in!

I would favor a third party that seeks to reduce waste in military spending, supports open primaries,
supports either approval voting, irv or something similar, and has a broad "big tent" approach.

The Green and Libertarians have failed to attract a lot of support, so perhaps something new is in order. It could be done with "baby steps", it is easy to get on the ballot in Colorado, I think, since the state had so many options, options not found in other states. Nevada's NOTC is something that appeals to be as well and should be an option everywhere for anyone who thinks that the "same old, same old" isn't working.

I'd like a third party that is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, environmentally responsible, and less interventionist but isn't as anti-government as the Libertarian Party.  The unfortunate thing, as some mentioned, is that such a party would be so broad with people of many different visions of a centrist party.

I could envision a multi-party system something like the UK (well, England specifically) emerging in legislative districts in the US; districts that are currently one-party (urban and liberal suburban districts and Dems, rural and conservative suburban districts for the GOP) draw substantial challenges from an either more moderate or more radical party. So in my home CD, the CT 3rd, I could imagine you could field a challenger from a well organized social-democratic party to Rosa DeLauro. In the district to the west of that, I would imagine that you could have a more Liberal Democratic (the UK party, that is) candidate and a more traditionally left-liberal candidate. But that would take a lot of political developments that haven't happened here. 

The Presidency, short of an iron-bound regional party (à la Wallace or the Dixiecrats in '68 and '72, and 1948 respectively) is a victim of Duverger's law.

I have a feeling that the only third party that can get any steam in the next few elections is the libertarian party.

The two parties have become equally bad, therefore "the lesser of two evils choice" is a myth.
(at least as far as Clinton v Trump is concerned)

Even under a parliamentary system there still seems to be some sort of barrier at 30% of the vote or so before you can really start making an impact as a centrist 3rd party. Just look at the British Lib Dems, with 7.5% of the vote (more than all 3rd parties combined in the US election) and only 12/650 seats.