True, but over the last 4 decades, the parties really have ideologically split. If you look at roll call votes, reps have moved away from the center a bit more than dems, but they've both absolutely diverged. I wish I had the bar graphs for this, but they have studied roll call votes from the first congress in 1789 until now, and we've NEVER been this divided. Over the last 4 decades, the divide has really become a huge chasm.
For sure, and that's how third parties begin to emerge. If we wanted to maintain a two party system, you'd need to form some kind of caucus of people in the middle who would decide they'd had enough with the factions. It could be a party, but it could also just be a group or caucus.
I went to a talk recently and that was the solution he was suggesting. Not a "split the baby" kind of ugly nobody's happy, bad middle ground. His idea went like this.
1) If you could get a group of people, representative of people across the political spectrum. Let's say we get 2000 people in our caucus.
2) We all agree to study a specific policy issue. We have a group of experts who give us a brief on it. Not alternative facts, but really good research, and we all agree to give it 3 hours of our time to try to really understand it.
3) If you can get these 2000 people to read it and say you get 2/3rds to agree it's a good idea? Let's imagine that here in PWI we study some immigration issue and 2/3rd of us say, "Yep. That's a good idea." Then you have some traction to go to our elected representatives and say, "Look. We're a nonpartisan group and we agree that this is a good idea. We want you to act on it."
4) If we can't get 2/3rds agreement on a policy, we don't move on it. Period. We've agreed that we are not interested in this FLIPPING back and forth where we alternate tyrannizing, imposing our will on the other party.