Will there ever be a viable third party, such as Independent?



I mean, one that actually has candidates to run in primaries. I know many people that don't concider being either Republican or Democrat, I am a moderate and feel that one is way too conservative and the other too liberal.   

Wasn't our democratic system set up to be three parties?
Our democratic system was originally setup to involve as many parties as possible. In fact, George Washington warned in his farewell address about the establishment of parties at all and advised that they not be formed. In practice, however, two parties were able to dominate by the mid-19th century.   

  

Today, the most viable option for third parties exist in states that allow candidates to run on multiple party tickets. A great example of this is the Working Families party in New York State. The Working Families party nominates candidates, usually on the democratic line, who can be voted for under the Working Families ticket instead of Democratic -- to give the politicians the message that they care about social issues for working families. The party is able to exert significant influence by refusing to endorse candidates who do not stand up for working families -- and has cost several candidates their seats because of their failure to earn the party's endorsement.   

  

Note that these third parties have primaries of their own that are sanctioned by the state.   

  

That said, parties like this are the ones paving the way towards BALLOT REFORM, which if instituted would open up the field to more parties who can gain real influence. Vermont or New Hampshire are seen as the states most likely to institute this first.
in order to have the election process more democratic there are few pre-requisites like:a. one vote, one value: to choose/elect the representative everyone must have one note with equal value. this is to avoid any type of conflicting situation.b. regular election: there should be regular elections in every democratic country so that people have their choice at regular intervals.c. free and fair election: in order to ensure a fair chance to the people there should be a free and fair election in every democratic country.d. political competition: in order to have democratic election parties, candidates should be free to contest elections and should offer some real choice to the voters. absolutely not. the proposal to abolish the electoral college is the horrid, but depressingly predictable, symptom of a populist age.populism is not a schematic philosophy but is rather an attitude toward culture and politics characterized by the veritable worship of "the common man," a distrust of elites, a wariness toward complexity and - significantly - a deep dislike of established institutions. (called these days, "the establishment" or "the swamp.") in this, then, the movement to abolish the electoral college is part of a larger current running through the society.indeed, at the same time that there have been calls to abolish the electoral college, there have also been calls to abolish the u. s. senate, or abolish the filibuster, to pack the supreme court (or limit the terms of justices or make other changes), to raise the voting age to 16 and in some cases to allow illegal immigrants to vote. what all of these have in common is that they take a torch to established institutions, particularly those institutions that put a break on the pure expression of the popular will.indeed, this is not just a phenomenon on the democratic side of the aisle at the moment. the republicans have been vocal in their attacks on the "media" - as if that were a single entity - and on silicon valley - which in the popular mode of the hour has discriminated and oppressed conservatives, it is alleged.most of all, republican who are feigning outrage over senator warren's call to abolish the electoral college are forgetting that one donald j. trump has advocated its abolition as well - at least until it helped him win. mr. trump - like all good populists - is no slave to consistency, after all.at any rate, abolition of the electoral college would be a horrid idea. it would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the country as both parties would camp out in california, new york, texas, florida and maybe ohio, leaving the rest of the country to itself. this would also very likely set the stage for the rise of regional parties, with all that would entail for the balkanization of the nation's politics.moreover, if the nation enjoyed the spectacle of the 2000 election, it should be prepared. in that year, the fight was over florida's electoral votes which confined the battle - as a legal and political matter - to the vote in one or two counties in that state. turn the battle into a nationwide popular vote and instantly the fight would move to the count in every close vote in every closely fought district across the country.there is irony in this. 2000 was effectively resolved by a ruling in the supreme court - that bastion of elitist judges and lawyers. abolish the electoral college and close votes across the country will invariably end up in the courts as a routine matter.the electoral college has served the nation well for over 200 years and such long established institutions deserve deference. their endurance certainly suggesting that they have worked as well as anything works in an imperfect world.wise societies realize that. which certainly suggests something about the state of american society. Some of the reasons include;

1. Socio Political system- Socio recurring coups and destabilization of the Pakistan's government and the nation as a whole has posed a challenge in formation of political parties.

2. High levels of illetracy- Developed nations are politically informed and therefore make clear decisions on matters of importance.In Pakistan there are high levels o illetracy and therefore the citizens lack an understanding of their political rights.

3. Self imposed leaders- The leaders make laws that favour them and therefore killing democracy.

4. Ethnicity-Pakistan's politics is based on ethnicity.Ethnic politics tend to divide a country as decisions are based on ethnic grounds rather than on ideologies.

5. Inefficiency of political parties-Political parties in Pakistan have a weak political system and therefore they are not convincing to the citizens.

6. Inherited politics-Leadership is passed through generations in Pakistan and this denies other new people with new ideas from leading the country. people do vote, regardless if they cast a ballot. silence can be thought of as a vote. the reason i say this is that i chose not to vote out of no confidence for the ballot. i would either have voted for something in which i did not believe, or i couldn't "thrown away" with a 3rd party vote, in which i still didn't believe.there is no write in option for "no confidence," and interestingly, if enough people voted this way, the way american voting works, would require either the candidates to all be thrown out, and a new set of candidates, or the government would make their own choice, at which point democracy would be dead. if we look at voting in this manner, it most certainly is compulsory. however, america has an odd obsession of thinking that the common man's vote for president actually matters. local votes will influence politics for a person far more than a presidential vote ever will. this is why many localities have gerrymandering, in order to control the constituency and votes.i personally do not believe my vote will ever make a difference, as it never has in any political election. besides, perpetuating the idea that the common man isn't controlled by our plutocratic corporatist "democracy" is silly, but people will keep on voting and believing that they matter, or are heard. perhaps my view is cynical and pessimistic. i see no reason to change it.c'est la vie. democracy is more effective than its other alternatives:1. promotes equality: one of democracy’s underlying principles is equality among citizens. it tries to stop discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, region or sex.2. enhances dignity of the individual: democracy does not allow the dignity or the basic rights of a person to be violated.3. improves the quality of decision-making: since decision-making power is not concentrated in one hand, democracy ensures an unbiased system of checks and balances.explanation: democracy largely derives its power from the citizen itself. unlike other forms of government, it prioritizes the welfare of citizens through the citizens themselves. there is already enough evidence to either require another election in some states (which there may not be time for) or require the state party convention (which are often controlled by republicans) to make a decision due to the issues laid out in the legal arguments. trump's team has very valid points and evidence to back up those points. legal process is necessary for legitimacy, but any judge who strictly interprets the law will side with trump’s team. due to the media’s propaganda campaign, i’m sure many judges would be concerned about the ramifications of the legal outcome, but ultimately they have to do their job as arbiters of the law. so trump should win his lawsuits even if the supreme court has to make the final decision. republicans are likely, but not guaranteed to be loyal to their party. trump will likely win in the end... either way, as of now no votes have been certified. if we examine those states that have generally finished their vote counts and have no legal contest at the moment then the current electoral vote count would be 227 biden vs 229 trump. so technically trump is currently winning even if the mainstream media wants to brainwash you into believing something else. electoral college. trump lost the popular vote. out votes don’t matter because of the electoral college. he should have never won in the first place and the only way we can get him out is if the blue voter turnout is high enough to swing the electoral vote in favor of biden if i may be permitted. i have worked in politics for over 30 years, including time as a legislative director and/or press secretary for four members of the house and - via the u. s. commission on security and cooperation in europe - two senators. my credentials and my sins thereby confessed i offer the following - 1) senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. though not an ideas guy, he is a shrewd and effective parliamentary operator who knows the senate rules perhaps as well or better than any senate majority leader in recent memory. temperate and highly effective, he is a superb coalition builder with an exquisite sense of timing. 2) senator john neely kennedy. also not necessarily an ideas guy, though solidly grounded in his principles, kennedy has a rapier wit that he is not afraid to deploy against both sides. an acid tongue, he calls 'em as he sees 'em, and yet somehow manages to maintain - maybe it is the southern accent - an air of civility and reasonableness. 3) senator ben sasse. a former college president, sasse is one of the most intellectual and thoughtful senators. a man who takes ideas seriously and who understands the consequences of ideas. he is the soft-spoken - and frankly much underestimated - intellectual giant of the senate. 4) senator joe manchin. from west virginia, manchin is a temperate thinker and coalition builder. not given to inflammatory language, he seeks balance and compromise. 5) senator dianne feinstein - although lately i must admit her conduct has disappointed, generally feinstein sticks to her principles - which i, more often than not, do not share - but does so in modulated tones and thoughftully. no fire breather, she makes her case soberly and intellectually. (though to add, of late, some of her actions - particularly in recent kavanaugh supreme court confirmation - have not been at her historically high standard.) 6) former representative trey gowdy - actually, not an active politician any longer and is now a fox commentator, gowdy is a former criminal prosecutor and house member. he knows the law better then most know there own name and brings to his thinking a piercing intellect and consistency of principle like few others. he is sorely missed by me in the house. suffice to say, i could go on, but those figures stand out as my, "if you wake me in the middle of the night and ask me out of the blue, these pop to mind" answers. however, my experience in politics is that, contrary to also the populist contempt, most of those who go into politics are intelligent and civic minded, hard working and eager to make the country better and the people they serve happier. like any large group of human beings, they have their foibles, none are perfect and some are downright awful. however, overall, the american public gets better than it appreciates. (a). looking at the maps one can clearly say that the twentieth century was very crucial in the spread of democracy.(b) during the early 20 century democracy was mostly in the continents like north america and south america while in certain continents like asia and africa there were almost no democratic countries.(c) even today there are certain areas that have not established democratic governments such as saudi arabia and china. i am far more concerned with people soft on crime yet want to make criminals out of legal gun owners. i am more concerned about people who think any loser should be allowed in america. if anyone has hid out for so many years they should be allowed to stayand if they breed a litter of kids on our tax dollars they should stay.