The two-party oligarchy has run its course

      Nowhere is it written (U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc) that There Shalt Be Two Political Parties, And They Shalt Be The Republican Party And The Democratic Party.  Yet too many Americans cling to the notion that this situation is eternally inscribed into law or something.  And with the Presidential election of 2020 around the corner, it is becoming painfully obvious that something needs to change.

      On the one hand, you have the Republican party, following the unbreakable rule that incumbent politicians always trump (excuse the pun) any and all other challengers.  So here is an incumbent president that, privately at least, most Republicans don't particularly like.  No wonder.  He's a lying, narcissistic, belligerent, crude, illiterate, immature, racist brat who breaks records in voter disapproval polls.  At least three other Republicans have stood up to challenge his 2020 nomination - but the Republican head honchos will have no distractions of that sort, and so will cancel as many state primaries as they can get away with.
      On the other side, you have the Democratic party, who cannot seem to agree on what it is they stand for.  The front-runner, Joe Biden (31% as of latest polls), is a major yawner with rather ambiguous positions on most major issues.  His only real assets are that he was Obama's veep, thus he has good name recognition.  And, he's not a flaming hard-core progressive like the next two runners-up.  Which brings us to the Democrat's biggest strategic conundrum:  do they really want to swing their party philosophy that far to the left?
      Clearly, the existing political system is FUBAR.  The outdated, irrelevant, disgusting two-party oligarchy needs to be tossed into the proverbial trash bin of history.
      What, if anything, should replace it?  Some will say that political parties should not even exist.  Candidates at all levels should compete on their merits and their issue stances alone, without the confusion of partisan baggage. 
      I disagree.  There is nothing inherently wrong with political parties, per se.  A political party, at its core, is simply a group of people with similar philosophy who band together to promote their cause.  The problem is when a party or two become permanently engraved like concrete into the political landscape.  When that happens, they lose their original focus and reason for existence.  It all becomes just a game, where winning is everything!  Parties and candidates will do anything, say anything, allow anything.  Who cares about honesty, integrity, or consistency?  Those things don't win elections.  The only important factor is:  will it beat the other guys? 
      Voters, meanwhile, fall into one of two categorizations:  First, you have your blind loyalists, who root for their party like it was a sports team.  There is no particular reason why they support a particular party; they just vote for it because they've always done so.  At the other end you have voters who get thoroughly disgusted by the whole affair and just drop out.  Either way you slice it:  this is not a way to run a nation.
      The ideal landscape is where you have dynamic system with proportional representation (PR) instead of winner-take-all.  (See this article of mine for more detailed discussion of PR.)  In this scenario, political parties are constantly forming, dying, merging, and splitting.  Parties are focused on ideas and philosophies, rather than on just winning at any cost.  Voters are engaged and more interested in real issues and real solutions, rather than personalities.  
      Were this to happen, what type of political parties might we see?  Letting my imagination run freely, here is one theoretical snapshot of American politics, circa 2020.  It would consist of the following four parties, where each draws roughly an equal amount of support among voters:

Nationalist

       The Nationalist Party.  Believes that God himself ordained the United States of America to be The Greatest Nation In The History Of The World.  Supports spending whatever it takes to be the world's premier global military empire - er, um, "superpower".   All borders would become permanently closed, and only descendants of the Europeans who stole the continent from the original natives are allowed to live here, or even visit here.  Cross-border trade would be strictly limited, if allowed at all.

Progressive

      The Progressive Party.   Government must redistribute all wealth "fairly" (minus government's hefty handling charges, of course).  Businesses should not be allowed to grow, earn profits, and use said profits to hire employees and pay them money; or, if allowed to do so at all, must be tightly controlled and run by government.  

Centrist

      The Centrist Party.   Middle-of-the-roaders on all issues.  Supports some foreign military intervention, but not too much.   Supports some governmental control over profit-making business, but not too much.

Libertarian

      The Libertarian Party.   Similar to today's Libertarian party, only now with proportional representation, voters could no longer use the excuse that supporting a minor party is "wasting your vote".  Thus, it would become a viable alternative for the (roughly) quarter of the population out there who believe:  That government is best which governs least.

      So there you have it:  a blueprint for a vastly improved political landscape.  Voters, what are we waiting for?