E. Musk’s “Third” Party. A Pipe Dream?

Elon Musk has quarreled with Mr. Trump over the recently adopted “One Big, Beautiful Bill” and decided to launch a new party as an alternative to the two major existing ones. He is going to call it “America party” and even he seems to have started its registration on July 4, but there is no info yet that anything has actually happened in this regard.

In my opinion, this is a necessary matter to get rid of the monopoly on power that the Republican and Democratic parties of the US have seized long ago. Both major parties have a subtle presence throughout America. It is impossible to make a political career in the US without being a member of one of them.
I saw the same thing in the USSR, but everything there belonged to the state, so it was impossible to get any high position without membership in the Communist party not just in politics, but also in industry, science, art or trade.

The American “winner-takes-all” electoral system works against the third parties.

Let me remind you that according to the US Constitution, the President is not elected by the people of the US by popular vote in November, but by electors (Electoral College) in each state in December. This is where the “winner-takes-all” rule applies which practically excludes the votes of a large number of state voters from voting and therefore, in particular, makes it practically impossible for third parties to get to the political Olympus. That's probably why the US is considered a “flawed democracy,” ranking 28th on the 2024 Democracy Index.

Hans Noel, a professor of political history and political methodology at Georgetown University, says about that: “You have to win outright in order to get anything… So it’s not like in other democracies where you start a small party and you get, you know, 20 or 30 percent of the vote, and then you get some share of the seats in the legislature and you can build from that.”
Billionaire tycoon Ross Perot received 19,743,821 (or about 19 percent) of the popular vote in 1992 and no electoral college votes at all.
The last time the presidential candidate from American Independent Party (not Republican or Democratic one) was back in 1968, when G. Wallace won some electoral votes due to five Southern states support.

The US Constitution organized America's political system to prevent third parties from governing the country, meaning that each of the two main parties controls about half of the political field, and together they have created a monopoly on power in the US. Competition, the main condition of development of any commercial project - and both major parties are successful commercial projects of two US elites to extract money from the US budget - has been practically absent for many years which has led to the degradation of 1) the political system and 2) the country's economy in the form of active accumulation of debts during last 25 years. Mr. Trump broke a long-standing taboo and greatly exacerbated the inter-party struggle, starting to sow hatred towards the Democrats in the country. Before that both parties coexisted quite peacefully and quietly made their money from the hard-working people who were not interested in politics.

It is impossible to change the US Constitution because:
1) all citizens swear and are obligated to support the current Constitution;
2) there is a tough confrontation between Democrats and Republicans in the country and no matter which side comes out with a proposal to change the Constitution, the other side will not allow it to happen;
3) both ruling parties are not interested in third parties entering the US Congress and will vote together against any change in the Constitution about that.

However, the Americans have long been thinking about the need for a “third party” in the US.

A Gallup poll in October 2024 showed that “fifty-eight percent of U.S. adults agree that a third major party is needed in the U.S. because the Republican and Democratic parties “do such a poor job” of representing the American people, marking the 12th consecutive majority-level reading in Gallup’s trend that stretches back more than two decades. While down five percentage points from last year’s record high, it is still on par with the average 56% support level over the course of the trend since 2003.”
And in October 2023, the number of Americans who supported the need for a third party was even higher than in 2024 - 63%.

Here comes a very simple thought: if a person is an “independent voter,” it means that he/she does not share the point of view of both main parties. Then he/she should not vote for them and this is understandable and correct. It’s just like not to get married at all if you have to choose between a fool and a bitch. However, here arises a terrible question for every American (and not only for the American): whom should I vote for then?
I answered this question in some detail in the article “True democracy vs American aristocracy: protest voting.” Protest voting is a powerful tool of the true democracy which seems strange only at first glance because the Americans have never tried it before.

Unfortunately, the Americans so far have answered this important question incorrectly. That is why they vote incorrectly: in the last presidential elections around 50% of independents said they voted for Mrs. Harris and 45% were for Mr. Trump. This means that they have again chosen the lesser of the two evils and therefore have again received evil in the form of Mr. Trump for the next 4 years. That is why the country is deteriorating politically and economically. And what is the point of being an “independent voter,” if they still vote for Democrats or Republicans? This is the American vicious circle: a choice without a choice, and it seems nobody sees that.
Therefore, the creation of a third party in the US is a necessary, but almost impossible task.

Problems for E. Musk (and all Americans) with launching a new political party.

There are plenty of problems and all of Mr. Musk's wealth may not be enough to achieve his goal.
Here are the main ones:
- the aforementioned “winner-takes-all” constitutional rule of the state’s electoral votes. A new party must win #1 in as many states as possible, because even #2 means no electoral votes in a state, i.e., a loss;

- a real infrastructure for a new party needs to be created in many states. States and the Federal Election Commission have many rules and requirements for registering a new political party. States also have their own rules, often including residential requirements and signed petitions from voters. In Georgia, for example, congressional candidates outside the two major parties must gather about 27,000 signatures from their district. That’s why no third-party candidate has been on a congressional ballot there since the law was enacted in 1943.
Even the name “America Party” could be a problem. New York State, for example, forbids the word “American” — or any variant — in party names.

- Elon Musk’s opposition to the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” is not a long-term new party strategy.
Mr. Musk agreed with one X user who suggested something like a party platform, consisting of reducing the debt, responsible spending, modernizing military with AI/robotics, accelerating to win in AI, less regulating in energy field, supporting free speech, pro tech, pronatalist approach and centrist policies. However, this is an ordinary platform sort of “for everything good, against everything bad” for an ordinary third party. It will not win #1 at the state level without huge money and time spent on promoting it which means again no electoral votes.
Besides, Mr. Musk is in a hurry and wants to target the midterm elections next year with his party, but it may hardly get on the ballot in even a dozen states by then with its ordinary platform and the current candidate registration system.

People or money?

All the media (and E. Musk himself) apparently imagine the new US party as some kind of analogue of the Republican or Democratic Party. There are already a few of them, like Libertarians, which vainly keep trying to get closer to the political Olympus for many years. Then the media are absolutely right: bringing such a party to the American political market is: 1) very difficult, 2) very expensive, 3) quite long and 4) may not to work at all. If Mr. Musk's party will not have its own face, the votes will have to be “bought” for crazy money.

The media, like all current US politicians, do not see the main thing - it is not money that wins elections (although this impression often arises), but the voting citizens who can give both money and votes. And since the people are the main thing here, then the new party should offer them some ideas for fundamentally improving their lives, then they will sponsor and vote for it.
So, what ideas can be offered to Americans for fundamentally improving their lives?

Does Mr. Musk have a chance to raise a new party?

Of course, he does. The new party needs to find its own unique face from the very beginning. And this shouldn’t be the face of Mr. Mask, but an idea.

It is necessary (and possible) to quickly introduce a new party to the US political market if it offers the nation a simple and understandable solution to one (not all at once) important and necessary problem, such as fair (in the sense of inexpensive) healthcare and medicine. Then it will not cost much, because healthcare is a very important problem for the nation. In April 2025 Americans’ top-ranking worries were pocketbook issues, including the economy (60%), healthcare costs (59%), inflation (56%), federal spending and the budget deficit (53%), and the Social Security system (52%), according to Gallup poll.

These are important and necessary problems of America that the new party should propose to solve and then people will vote for it. Yes, these problems need to be solved in a comprehensive manner, but inflation, country's debts and rising cost of living are more complex concepts to understand and explain than healthcare, so the economic agenda will require more time and money. Therefore, since Mr. Musk wants to show his party already at the 2026 midterm elections, he needs to start now with just one simple and understandable thing, which many Americans need. Even loyal followers of D. Trump will vote for the new party then and it will not take much money for promoting.

One of the “downsides” here, which is inevitable, is: it will be necessary to really reduce prices in medicine, and therefore destroy the current extortionate healthcare system in the country. Its reform is long overdue.
Some people will say that price cap is socialism. Yes, maybe, but isn’t 41.7 million people (around 12% of the US population) receiving food stamps in “the richest country in the world” a socialism? Capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin and there is no capitalism without elements of socialism and vice versa.

The question is not about the system, it's about social justice. The main (and fair) principle of properly functioning healthcare system in any country is: working people should be able to pay for their medical needs out of the pocket, just like they buy food, drinks, etc., otherwise either their salaries are too low to cover the vital needs (in “the richest country in the world”?), or the prices for healthcare in the country are made too high. Insurance-based medicine exists only because healthcare prices in the US are made abnormally high and everything is done terribly (and I think, intentionally) complicated.

Yes, lowering prices here means going against the powerful US elites who earn about $4.5 trillion a year on healthcare, but this simple and clear principle can be supported by the US people with their money and votes, while the elites can only object just with their money.

And one more thing: the confrontation with the powerful and rich elites of the US is a real war without rules, and people sometimes are killed at war. The elites will not give up “their place in the sun,” and the more correctly and decisively Mr. Musk acts, the more likely he will be physically eliminated. No man – no problem.

The fork in the road.

So, Mr. Musk has two options if he is serious about launching a new party:
1. He may not bother his head with the ideology and the party platform, and go instead (like many do) “for everything good and against everything bad,” trying to promote this party for money and take away some voters from the Republicans (and Democrats, of course).
The bad thing here is that he can easily spend a lot of money, a lot of time and most likely get nothing in return (see above). But the good thing here is that no one will plot to kill the leader of the new party, especially at the very beginning of the journey because he most likely will not succeed in the existing system.

2. Mr. Musk can offer one simple, understandable and needed idea to the Americans (the best, in my opinion, is inexpensive healthcare and drugs), explain to them how it can be implemented and what it will give to every American in practice. 41% of US adults struggle with the healthcare debt. This is a huge electoral base that already exists and will support such an initiative.
And Mr. Musk needs to promote the main idea, which is accompanied by a new party under the slogan “everything for the people, but first – fair healthcare,” and not a party that will implement this idea.

Thus, Mr. Musk will be able to attract the electorate of Republicans, Democrats and many “independent voters,” which there are already no fewer than the first or the second ones in the country. Here, relatively little money will be needed just to convey the idea to the maximum number of people, and there is no need to even explain the benefits of implementing it, everything is clear.
The downside here is that Mr. Musk may lose the war to reform the healthcare system to powerful elites, but in any case the party leader is risking his life and money.

I think that Mr. Musk will take the first path (if he doesn’t change his mind about launching a new party) because nobody sees the country’s problems as a whole, their causes, and therefore cannot offer a holistic solution to them.


P.S. There is a very good, simple and profound formula for achieving happiness: “If you want to be happy — be happy”.
To achieve their happiness, the Americans must vote correctly. Then this formula, when applied to elections, should sound in that way: “If you want a third party - don't vote for the two existing ones.”