LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Ross Perot is the most successful third party candidate of the modern era, hence he is the "gold standard" because he was (and still is) the most successful. he was actually on the debate stage in 1992. nowhere have i claimed they shouldn't exist, but i have claimed that the two party system is necessary and perhaps even a good thing in the US, due to it's unique character, population, geography, history, system of government, etc.
it seems to me that you'd be mistaken to mistake a black swan like Trump as proof of anything, really, beyond his own celebrity powers, the weakness of the field, and the post-Obama GOP madness (and the reverberations of what was a nearly catastrophic economic collapse in 2008). the 2020 GOP nominee will likely be back to the model of a more typical GOP candidate. also, Trump's views aren't all that much out of the mainstream of the GOP candidates in general, and it also speaks to the size of the field that diluted anti-Trump votes so no credible opposition was able to rise. i think everyone, Trump included, is shocked he's the nominee, and i think he was planning on running as a Perot (and then starting his own cable network).
"most westernized countries" are different, and have different systems of government, and thus have different needs than the US.
Your use of "gold standard" here versus earlier isn't the same. You've numerous times implied that that's the model for a third party candidate, or that inherently all third party candidates are unqualified, ideological, not serious, or jokes a la Perot.
Short of continuing to say there's lots of diversity (which to my point is contradictory), you haven't explained why a two party system is "necessary." There's nothing to suggest this is the case.
Most westernized countries, on the whole, have a relatively similar system of government, with political parties and individuals who campaign for office with an end goal of winning an election. It's similar enough to draw comparisons in many cases. Our political system wasn't necessarily designed with intentions of having parties at all, but it certainly wasn't designed to have just two parties. That's a product of centralization of money and power. There's no "necessity" and you haven't provided an actual thought out reason for declaring such a necessity, so I'm confused as to what you even mean by that.