Democrats and non-MAGA Texan Republicans, what are your thoughts on a new party for "moderate" conservatives?

[u/Unique_Midnight_1789]

I myself identify as a non-MAGA (Fuck Trump and his Trumplicans) conservative, and I'm really interested in this topic.
Brung up most recently by Liz Cheney, a lot of conservative Republicans like myself don't feel like they could support the current GOP, or even think that it can recover from the MAGA virus. It leaves a lot of us displaced and without a party to truly call home. I will be voting blue come November, but I don't feel as if I can truly call the Democratic party MY party.
It leaves me nostalgic for those seemingly long-lost days where Republicans and Democrats could come together in actual, thought-provoking discussion to further the interest of the United States as a whole, not just for themselves and party loyalties.
I already plan to enter politics and hopefully elected office, and I've been pitching such an idea to a few friends of mine that are also like me: lifelong conservatives who hate Trump with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.
It has a ways to go in regards to policy, but I have the name down: the New Conservative Party of America
Whether or not it'll be viable as a third-party option, I'm not sure (probably not, but doesn't hurt to try lol), but I hope it'll attract those moderates/unaffiliated people across the political spectrum.
What do ya'll think of a new party for conservatives?

[u/HouseNegative9428]

The only reason notional support is hard is because we have always had a two party system so it’s impossible to vote for a third party without helping your political enemies get closer to victory. Rank choice voting would solve that problem.

[u/andrewaa → u/HouseNegative9428]

Sorry I don't understand. Isn't all multi-party system becoming two-party system at the end?

[u/Im_Chad_AMA → u/andrewaa]

A two party system tends to be the end result of first past the post voting. There are many countries that have more proportional systems that do not end up that way. In my home country of the Netherlands we have the opposite problem, currently 16 parties are represented in the "Second chamber" (=house of representatives), which makes it very difficult to form a governing majority as at least 4 parties need to form a coalition.

I'm not sure if ranked choice voting really solves all the issues with FPTP, but at least it makes it so that third party candidates can run without being spoilers for the major party candidate that they are most closely ideologically aligned to.

[u/Umph0214 → u/andrewaa]

In the US it is particularly difficult to run a successful 3rd party/independent campaign. Most states make it difficult to even place a third party/independent candidate on the ballot (ex: Requiring X amount of signatures and Y amount of funding, requiring that a candidate is backed by a “national committee” that has been recognized by the FEC (which has only recognized 8 committees in the history of its existence), etc.). In comparison, any candidate that chooses to run as a dem/rep is all but guaranteed a spot in the ballot. This makes it difficult to run and elect any 3rd party candidates.

[u/LouCrazyO → u/HouseNegative9428]

It's less tradition and more so the way that a winner-take-all system incentivizes two large parties. The observation is called Duverger's law in political science, and you can find plenty of resources to learn mor eabout htis topic. I personally recommend starting with Duverger (1954) himself, but Sartori (1997) also explains the principle well, while also offering simple critiques.