This history is well done, but leaves out one crucial change that had a huge impact in the viability of smaller and newer parties: the elimination of fusion or cross-endorsement voting that state legislatures adopted starting in the 1890s. Before then, the obstacles for a smaller party were much lower--they had to agree on who they wanted to nominate and then circulate ballots with their candidates names on them. Parties printed their own ballots--then candidates won elections based on the total number of votes they received. Fusion is how the Populist Party grew after the Civic War, and it declined as soon as state legislatures--controlled by either Ds or Rs--decided to move to the Australian ballot, which we now refer to as the secret ballot, and they determined how who would get on the ballot, creating severe barriers to smaller parties and favoring the bigger ones. Without fusion (or proportional representation or other vote counting systems like IRV), smaller parties tend to have brief periods of popularity (and that's only when they are elevating a neglected issue that the major parties are ignoring) followed by being seen as spoilers, followed by turning into ballot lines controlled by a mix of ideologues and grifters.
I admire the effort and detail put into this article. Third parties have long existed in the United States, but frankly I find this statement:
"History suggests that the Forward Party will be impactful in the short term"
To be just plain wrong. History suggests the Forward Party will have little to no impact on modern politics. Most 3rd party movements stem from single issues, or from a major party splitting. To use some of your examples:
The American Independence Party in 1968 ran on the issue of "States Rights" (nobody said the issue had to be good). The Party focused on the South, with the intent of capitalizing on regional dissatisfaction with the Civil Rights movement. The same could be said of the Dixiecrat rebellions in years past (where Southern Democrats attempted to prove to their Northern cousins that they needed the South to win: the ultimately proved that the South was unnecessary for the Democratic Party to win).
The Progressive Party in 1912 stemmed from a Progressive Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) challenging his Conservative fellow Republican. Future Progressive Parties (like Robert M La Follette) followed the same pattern: the GOP was a big tent party with many factions. The Progressives consistently felt underappreciated in their own party, and attempted to exert influence by breaking off from the Republican Party, and they had some success! They won some congressional elections, that's not nothing.
Other parties from the 19th century follow a similar pattern. The Republican Party originally formed via a combination of disaffected Whigs (who opposed slavery), Northern Democrats (who also opposed slavery), and Free Soilers. At the end of the day: the GOP absorbed the other minor parties, because the minor parties weren't viable unless they banned together.
The reality is the problem is not the two parties. The problem is the system which governs our elections. The US House operates under a "First Past the Post" Single member district system, the Senate is basically the same thing, and the President is elected separately. In this scenario: the two party system is a natural coping strategy for parties to exert power. Since a party with only 10-20% support is unlikely to gain much power in Congress (or win the Presidency) it makes more sense for those parties to band together in big tents. Unless the Forward Party is proposing to change the underlying structure: it's not offering a solution, it's just a placebo.
This history is well done, but leaves out one crucial change that had a huge impact in the viability of smaller and newer parties: the elimination of fusion or cross-endorsement voting that state legislatures adopted starting in the 1890s. Before then, the obstacles for a smaller party were much lower--they had to agree on who they wanted to nominate and then circulate ballots with their candidates names on them. Parties printed their own ballots--then candidates won elections based on the total number of votes they received. Fusion is how the Populist Party grew after the Civic War, and it declined as soon as state legislatures--controlled by either Ds or Rs--decided to move to the Australian ballot, which we now refer to as the secret ballot, and they determined how who would get on the ballot, creating severe barriers to smaller parties and favoring the bigger ones. Without fusion (or proportional representation or other vote counting systems like IRV), smaller parties tend to have brief periods of popularity (and that's only when they are elevating a neglected issue that the major parties are ignoring) followed by being seen as spoilers, followed by turning into ballot lines controlled by a mix of ideologues and grifters.
I admire the effort and detail put into this article. Third parties have long existed in the United States, but frankly I find this statement:
"History suggests that the Forward Party will be impactful in the short term"
To be just plain wrong. History suggests the Forward Party will have little to no impact on modern politics. Most 3rd party movements stem from single issues, or from a major party splitting. To use some of your examples:
The American Independence Party in 1968 ran on the issue of "States Rights" (nobody said the issue had to be good). The Party focused on the South, with the intent of capitalizing on regional dissatisfaction with the Civil Rights movement. The same could be said of the Dixiecrat rebellions in years past (where Southern Democrats attempted to prove to their Northern cousins that they needed the South to win: the ultimately proved that the South was unnecessary for the Democratic Party to win).
The Progressive Party in 1912 stemmed from a Progressive Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) challenging his Conservative fellow Republican. Future Progressive Parties (like Robert M La Follette) followed the same pattern: the GOP was a big tent party with many factions. The Progressives consistently felt underappreciated in their own party, and attempted to exert influence by breaking off from the Republican Party, and they had some success! They won some congressional elections, that's not nothing.
Other parties from the 19th century follow a similar pattern. The Republican Party originally formed via a combination of disaffected Whigs (who opposed slavery), Northern Democrats (who also opposed slavery), and Free Soilers. At the end of the day: the GOP absorbed the other minor parties, because the minor parties weren't viable unless they banned together.
The reality is the problem is not the two parties. The problem is the system which governs our elections. The US House operates under a "First Past the Post" Single member district system, the Senate is basically the same thing, and the President is elected separately. In this scenario: the two party system is a natural coping strategy for parties to exert power. Since a party with only 10-20% support is unlikely to gain much power in Congress (or win the Presidency) it makes more sense for those parties to band together in big tents. Unless the Forward Party is proposing to change the underlying structure: it's not offering a solution, it's just a placebo.