Or just... you know... break up the parties. Because the party organization is the one pushing this sort of thing.
How would we go about breaking up the parties?
Logistically, legally, or philosophically?
You could definetly split both parties into their moderate (insofar as they exist on the Republican side) and far left/right sections, but I'm not sure how much further they can be divided. The Green and Libertarian parties already have their niches.
The main problem though is the first past the post system, which makes a two party system inevitable.
If I remember correctly, there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment to replace the FPTP with another system, the alternate vote system, this video explains it better than me
Just saying "Break up the parties" is a bit of an "Eat the rich" solution to things. It would be almost undoable, especially since those parties have control over almost every recourse you'd use to enact a breakup. Not to mention such a breakup would leave things a bit chaotic and probably enable even worse forces to slip into positions of control than before...
There is however an undercurrent in some circles who quote George Washington as specifically warning against political parties.
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Ignoring the fact that parties had already formed, and Washington had chosen his side and was mostly angry that others were disagreeing with him, it's still fairly prescient a statement, having been given a chance to see history unfold so closely to what he was warning about.
With all that said though, I can think of no feasible way, short of a spontaneous, widespread, anti-political uprising, that we could go about it. So break up the parties, eat the rich, and
a pony for every American.