and, the obvious unstated truth is that the american voting public needs to participate in a three-party system or it won't succeed, as well - and that itself may be the larger barrier to adoption. my arguments about the nature of decision making would not appear to be convincing to most americans, who seem to insist on the superiority of a strong executive power. it is, after all, a system with an elected supreme military leader. and, if that is the case then the country is perhaps doomed to it's own cultural demise; it perhaps has no potential way forward but collapse, without altering itself to the point that it's no longer itself. but, america has already reinvented itself before, hasn't it?
i don't think it's a deep prediction that following the status quo in america is a path towards inevitable, irreversible decline. and, if i'm right about the two party system being a fundamental barrier to the enaction of substantive change, a rapid adoption of a three-party system may be a necessary and overdue shock to the gridlocked system.
so, discussions about the role of a third party in america need to be seen with a longer lens view than whether any specific motion passes or not.