The question has been asked many times recently, and several candidates have tried that option and failed, with Ross Perot managing to be, at best, a spoiler. As the conventional wisdom has it, setting up a third party against the entrenched Republicans and Democrats would be such a monumental task, and the resources needed so large, that it simply cannot be pulled off. Yet, beneath the surface things are not quite as described above.

First, let us look at the numbers. Each party has its hard core base, representing roughly 20% of the total electorate. Next to them are the registered but lukewarm members, those disappointed with Bush on one side, the so-called "Reagan Democrats" on the other. In the middle is the ever growing cohort of independents, desperately looking for someone who cares about their issues. If the independents were gathered and fired up they would be, numerically, the largest voter group in the country.

Next, the historical record: no third party has ever succeeded in US history, except one: the original Republicans. That party was founded in 1854 in a Wisconsin schoolhouse - about as far from Washington as one could get at the time. By 1860 it controlled Congress, the White House, and a raft of Governorships. With a few interruptions it reigned supreme over US politics from the election of Abraham Lincoln to that of FDR (in 1932).

The Republicans' strengths at their founding were twofold. The first was their platform, which provided practical answers to the major problems the country experienced at the time: the development and financing of industry, the education of a technical class, the integration of the western states into the economy, free land for settlement; and finally slavery. The Republican platform answered to all these issues, and was an immediate hit with two thirds of the voters (meaning just about everyone outside the South).

The second strength was their big open tent. The new party welcomed anyone who agreed with their goals, regardless of previous party affiliation. Thanks to this they rapidly recruited a large number of able and experienced leaders and candidates (Lincoln was one) capable from the start of filling congressional or gubernatorial positions. This pool of talent was the main factor underlying the Republicans' near-instantaneous success.

Fast forward to today: as then, we have a vast number of independent or disaffected voters looking for answers. As then, we have major issues no one from the political establishment is willing or able to tackle. As then, we have a political class more concerned with the preservation of its position than with the interests of the nation.

There is a fourth factor, the impact of which is not quite clear yet: the existence of an extraordinary system of instant communication. This system (mainly the internet) has been exploited by the established parties for fundraising, but its full political impact is still to be seen. For the moment the internet universe is fragmented into a galaxy of individuals and groups, all jostling against each other and moving in a myriad of different directions. Can even a part of this universe coalesce around a political movement? If it could, its power would be awesome.

What would trigger such a phenomenon? I do not know, anymore than I know what triggered the "Republican revolution" of 1854. Maybe it was something in the national spirit, maybe the platform the party put together, and which linked the small original group of founders to the broad mass of the people.

Today we would need a "people's platform" as well. We will try to tackle that issue in one of the upcoming columns.