We are not debating whether we have usually had two parties, but rather why. The argument that "it is the EC/ Constitution's fault" lacks causal connection. The fact that parties have been born while others have died, within our constituational framework, is direct evidence that we are not constitutionally stuck where we are. That notion is defeatist / nihilistic
Trivia Q: In which election did we have four candidates from the same party receiving electoral votes?
What we're arguing about are two different things. You're arguing whether parties can change or evolve. I'm arguing that no more than two parties can exist in our political system because of the way our Constitution was written.
'm saying is that our Constitution actually prevents more than two political parties from existing. What you seem to argue is that political parties can't evolve or that new political parties can't form. They have and will. Federalists, Your Whig argument actually supports mine, you just didn't recognize it. The Whig party was swallowed up by the Republican party. But our country's history shows that no more than two political parties can exist for a sustained amount of time because of the structure set forth by our Constitution.
Or do you think having more than just 2 parties is just a mental block that we need to "get over?" How do you suppose we "get over" this mental block seeing how we're over 200 years into this thing and never has there been a sustained 3rd party success?