Serious correction. Every party since the Federealists and the Anti-Federalists have been “third parties.” The duopoly of lame Republicans against lame Democrats is only in the last century. See the Harvard Political Review cover story for the Fall, 1980, on third parties. (I wrote it, so it is accurate.}
++++++++++++++
I will look up your article.
If you are looking at the entire flow of US history, then of course major parties have been replaced or merged into or renamed as other major parties - especially in our first 100 years of national history - and I guess you could call that a successful 3rd party. So perhaps we’re quibbling over semantics (vs. ‘serious correction’s)
But what if you are looking at election cycles since say 1864 - for say the past 150 years.
Would you say that 3rd parties have had much/any success since then? Why not and why should we trust a 3rd party initiative now to be any different?
Do we have 25 years to test such a theory?
There are two ways that parties succeed. The obvious way is to elect their members to office. The less obvious way is to push their polities into the platforms of other, major parties.
Also, third parties have a different effect at the state level, sometimes. The Progressive Party took the governorships and state legislatures around the turn of the last century, and through the code they passed in California had a national impact on state laws. Also, contrary to popular belief, Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ballot in 1912 in 47 of the 48 states. There never was a legally-established Bull Moose Party.
In my article in the American Bar Association Journal in August, 1977, "The Bloodless Revolution of 1976," I predicted a serious independent candidacy for President. I did not think it would come as early as 1980 in the form of John Anderson. Eventually, someone other than a Repub-licrat will be elected President. I view that as positive. But it won't happen in 2012.
John / Billybob