If I recall correctly, the third party candidate Gary Johnson running in 2012 actually sued the corporation running the debates for creating arbitrary rules to force-out third-parties in the debates. Not sure what became of it, but it is a good example of how they actively force out third parties in the political race for President, at least.
But again, I don't really want a third party for third party's sake. I mean, I doubt Gary Johnson, from what I know of him, would have dramatically improved matters if he had been allowed to go and debate. I think back to the NY Governor's race in 2010: We had a whole lotta third parties; remember the "Rent is too damn high" guy? It was a hilarious side-show to the democrat winning: everyone else was ridiculous.
With only two parties you either get a government blank check (if they control both houses) or complete gridlock (if opposite parties control each house). With a third party, you have independent voices in government who aren't beholden to the major party interests. If that third party has the deciding vote in either house, then politicians from both major parties end up trying to modify their proposals to appeal to the middle guy, and thus you wind up getting actual compromise solutions instead of tactical gridlock.
Well first, the only way to gain a blank check (as the currently republican congress is very, very aware) is to control Congress and the Presidency. Now, secondly you describe a "independent voices in government who aren't beholden to the major party interests". But we are talking about a
major third party right? If yes, then by definition it is susceptible to the same influences the others are. You may disagree, but I ask you: what would this third party entail? No party exists in a vacuum after all; Left-wing, Right-wing, Center? There are problems no matter what you do. Any right-wing or left-wing party would permanently cede the Presidency to the left or right wing, respectively, and could also lead to awkward fighting over the shared base (as there is with the Tea Party v. Establishment, and they are still the same party!), which could just
worsen gridlock. As for the center? I struggle to conceive of a viable centrist party: all third parties I've seen distinguish themselves by their opposition to the current order (otherwise why would they vote for them?), and moderates and realists just, don't do that. Realists and moderate politicians tend to be establishmentarians, as the sheer weight of inertia supports the current system, and only something radical could overturn it; the center is, by definition, not radical.
The big thing that a viable third party would do is bring less polarity to politics. As it is, most informed voting decisions are made on the basis of a few single issues, and voters have to swallow the rest of the platform of the party that agrees with their stance on that view, and much of the platforms is based on being directly opposite the other party, forcing people not only to swallow a lot they don't support, but actively endorse it. For example, someone who is pro-gun, pro-gay, and pro-working class doesn't have a candidate that supports all three issues, and is likely to have to support a candidate that opposes at least one. So, he has to evaluate which issues are more likely to be a serious issue in the next two, four, or six years (depending on position), knowing that unexpected circumstances may bring a different issue to the forefront and putting him in the position of having voted for someone he now opposes vehemently.
A viable third party would do a lot to reduce that problem, because not only would there be a third platform in the mix (meaning that you have more options on what stances the candidates are going to take on the issues), but the existing parties would no longer have the incentive to set their platforms up as "the opposite of the other guy" to attract single-issue voters, providing a net benefit even if it is a bad party in general
Now this point is well taken, and I will keep it in mind. However, I still have some concern over what any consistent third party that would
also fit this role would actually look like. It's easy to discuss the hypothetical as if we were creating a new nation with an undeveloped political spectrum, but we are discussing an existing one. If the two parties are considered to be more-or-less opposite on each issue (with a few exceptions), how would a third party also support an issue in such a way as to be considered as legitimate as whichever main party already supports it?
So after the 2012 elections there were some editorials talking about Obama going shopping for an international legacy in either Israel (getting the peace process moving again) or Cuba. Then Israel exploded again.
So now this is happening.
A pretty damned big deal.
Also people this is a big fucking deal. Don't respond to me, respond to this! The BBC article is deceptively calm. I don't ordinarily consider this a good thing, but this is a good time for big headlines. Let me rephrase:
US moves to normalize relations with Cuba.