No, I'm not for that at all, though I do think that 3rd party runs for president are vain in every sense. You've got to start low and build up.
[WS:] Absolutely. But the real question is why is it not happening here? This is not really rocket science and if you and I could figure that out, why not the others?
As I see it, there are only three answers to that question: (i) because there are structural obstacles that prevent the formation of political parties, (ii) because most US-sers are inherently stupid or brainwashed and incapable of acting in their own interest and (iii) it is happening, but in the form that does not fit the third-party build up model. Since (i) and (ii) are demonstrably false, (iii) seems to be the answer.
As I see it, Dems and Repugs are not parties, as it is understood in parliamentary systems, but rather coalitions of parties. Therefore, the main difference between the US and a parliamentary system is that in the latter coalitions are formed, for the most part, AFTER the election, whereas in the US they are formed BEFORE the election.
Both Dems and Repugs are institutional vehicles for various interest groups to enter a coalition for the purpose of forming a majority government by winning the election. With that in mind, "third" -and fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. parties are formed all the time and enter one of the two coalition blocks in a similar way that coalitions are formed in a parliamentary system. Only those parties that do not manage to enter any of the two coalition blocks (Dems or Repugs) remain on the scene as a "third" party - i.e. a party of misfits, and visible failure to effectively engage in the electoral process.
>From that point of view, the absence of "third parties" should be seen as
evidence of the openness of the existing institutional venues, not their
rigidity and limitations. It is so, because people are not stupid and know
how to protect their collective interests and there are no obstacles to
forming interest groups and parties in the US. Since there is a motive and
there are the means, there must be a political outcome of it. And if that
political outcome is not accumulating in the form of third parties - it
follows that is absorbed into the existing political structure. This is a
conclusion reached by William Gamson in his book "Strategy of social
protest" http://web.syr.edu/~mfstotle/gamson.html in which he analyzed
social movements in the history of the US.
In short - there are political parties forming all the time in the US, but most of them coalesce into one of the two main coalitions aka Dems or Repugs. Those that do not and remain as "third parties" are either outright political failures or perhaps opening gambits in negotiating the conditions of future entry into one of those coalitions. If the outcome of this process is not in line with what self-styled radicals and populists would wish to have, it is perhaps an indicator of the unpopularity of the latter's ideas rather than a sign of the constrains of the political system.
Wojtek