We have a 2 party system but both parties evolve. Obama's policies were more in line with Nixon and Eisenhower than are Trump's despite party affiliation. To create new parties what groups have done is sought to hijack/exploit one of the 2 major parties. The Tea Party (faux grassroots movement) successfully took over the Republican Party. There success has been root in singular isues that sharply divide people based on identity racial and religious. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, Bush 43 sought to pass a guess worker program, but now Trump wants to deport millions and build a wall. We also saw it on the left why a strong group supporting Sanders (himself a registered independent) sought to take the nomination and shape the direction of the party. How success their efforts were or will be has yet to be determined.
It has been bad for the Country and the 2 parties inmy opinion. Because rather than revitalizing political debate with fresh ideas the attempts to reshape the parties over time have made the parties less diverse. The republican party increasingly serves an ever shrinking group of people (white christian males with money) while the Democratic party is being pulled into the false choice of either being universally moderate or transformationally progressive.
So the answer to your question is that people have to first stop going for the homerun of taking over one of the 2 mojor parties. A "new" party should be new and not merely an attempt to reband something else. That way the party is free to bring in new ideas. It order to make that possible people need to feel they aren't throwing away voting for something other than the two major parties. We need rank choice voting. Rather than voting for a single candidate one ranks a couple. If a person's #1 pick doesn't win their vote goes to their #2 choice. If people could exercise choice without it merely being a protest vote I think new party would spring up.
For once, I agree.
Still going to be difficult.
Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?