Do really need a new party?
This is where my near complete ignorance of the political landscape shows. But aren't there entities like WFA and whatnot that could be expanded? As an old-time programmer, I'm always big into reuse rather than create.

Regarding 6b... "Sellout Party"
I do not believe any possible set of rules can accomplish this. What it takes is culture and vigilance. The culture part is especially critical. There was a quote in a SciFi book I like that roughly says, "Humans find it much easier to circumvent law than tradition" In what passes for my leadership experience, this is why corporations make cultural values statements. In corporations that are serious about them, they really do make an impact.

In one case, merely quoting one of those values put me through to the CIO on Christmas eve... of a major transnational. He made a 10 million dollar decision on the strength of my word and that same cultural value. I was nobody important. There was absolutely nothing at stake other than whether the company would honor it's own cultural values or not. There was no other risk or reason to deal with the matter on Christmas Eve. I only relate that story to demonstrate my conviction that such things, while often frittered away in corporations, actually do work and they work very well. No normal "rule" that I could imagine would have solved that problem. In fact, the company had rules which should have solved the problem. It's worth noting that though I have resigned from that company there are still aspects like that one which I have a HUGE amount of respect for... along with the CIO who picked up that phone. Respect is a handy thing to accumulate if you're trying to build a new organization.

Probably at one point the Democratic Party had such things. But they lost vigilance and they started to not treat them as seriously as the story I related above. Once some members of the leadership started cutting corners it was the end. Bill Clinton and his DLC bullshit should've been laughed out of the room the moment he opened his mouth. I could be wrong but probably at one point he would've been.

There is no way to make any human endeavor proof from corruption. You can, however, make it an awful lot harder.

One last stray thought
Sensible Futures Party? I love your analysis but we need a marketing guy badly

Have to confess I'm starting to warm to the idea of a brand new political party. It's clear to me that taking over the Democratic Party, as recommended by people like Bernie and Michael Moore, is an unattainable goal. The corrupt, bought and paid for party infrastructure is far too deeply entrenched. Despite all the best efforts of would-be reformers, I'm quite certain that four years from now the DP, both operationally and philosophically, will be very much like the way it is today. The people controlling it want power for themselves - which they have - far more than they want power for the party as a whole, or for its nominal support base.

Unfortunately, reforming the Green Party might not be that much better of an option. Would-be reformers would have to fight their way through an existing power structure that has shown time and again that they're more interested in making grand statements and maintaining philosophical purity than they are in the thankless, nuts and bolts work of building a meaningful support base. Also the very name "Green Party" conjures up in the mind of many an organization that values a pristine environment more highly than economic development - which in times of economic uncertainty and dislocation is not necessarily the best image to project. Granted, those two goals don't necessarily have to be in conflict, but understanding such nuances requires an educated and informed electorate, and there's no point in gratuitously creating a negative framing in the minds of voters who don't yet have that kind of understanding.

That said, I think "Sensible Futures Party" is a very poor choice for a name, because in the minds of many the word "futures" connotes the most irresponsible kind of financial speculation, and you obviously don't want to put yourself in the position of having to educate the public about your name right out of the box. (Makes me think of the fictional pop band "The One-ders" from the movie That Thing You Do.) Even "Sensible Future Party", singular, sounds to me like something cooked up by Good Housekeeping.

In my view, the name shouldn't sound recycled or retro, like the New Progressive Party or the New Deal Party, nor should it sound gimmicky or obscure like the Sensible Futures Party. It should be something new and unique, and should speak directly to the party's raison d'etre, namely that it exists to give the common people a vehicle for attaining and exercising political power, in opposition to the existing paradigm of power residing solely in the hands of the economic elite. Something like People's Democracy Party would be good. Simple, direct, and immediately understandable.

One of the most important things for any prospective alternative party to accomplish would be to draw a favorable distinction between itself and all the other minor parties that currently exist. If you check the Wikipedia entry for American political parties, you will see that there are three principle minor parties - Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution - and innumerable smaller ones, both national and regional in character. It would be incredibly easy to get lost in the scrum of all these bit player entities competing for recognition and support.

Two things that come to mind that a new alternative party could do to set itself apart. First, develop a core agenda of policy initiatives addressing the most important and urgent issues, that all prospective candidates would be required to fully and unconditionally endorse and support. Not an 800-page opus of detailed position papers, but a concise, bullet point type summary of how the party proposes to deal with such issues as:

• Health care
• Student debt
• Global warming/environmental protection
• Alternative energy
• Foreign trade
• Building a robust economy that works for everyone
• Military/Foreign policy
• Financial regulation
• Electoral reform
• Media consolidation
• Militarization of police
• Criminal justice and prisons
• Civil liberties and the surveillance state

Well, that's just off the top of my head, and perhaps ideally there are things that should be either added or subtracted. The point being, if all X-Party candidates are committed to one, very specific and unambiguous agenda, then voters would know exactly what set of policies they would get if enough X-Party candidates were elected and installed in office. That in itself is a powerfully persuasive argument in favor of rejecting the failed status quo and embracing a radical reordering of the political power structure.

The other, equally important element is having all candidates subscribe to a very specific Public Servant Code of Conduct, that lays out a formal set of rules covering fundraising, acceptance of gifts and honorarium, and other potential sources of corruption and conflict of interest, and which would cover not only cover the candidate's conduct during the period of his/her campaign, but also time in office, and even conduct during their post-career period. One of the things voters find so disgusting and repugnant about both D and R candidates is their open, unapologetic embrace of a system that everyone knows amounts to nothing more than legalized bribery. Enforcing a very explicit Code of Conduct that applies to all X-Party candidates would be a great way to draw a favorable distinction between the status quo - as represented by the current duopoly parties - and something that would be immediately seen as all together new, different, and infinitely better.

Bottom line, I don't think it's chiseled in stone that the two existing major parties are always fated to get 95% plus of the popular vote in national (or in fact regional or local) elections, especially as time goes on and the faux populist Trump is revealed to be as big a fraud and sellout as the prior faux populist presidents Clinton and Obama. The challenges before us are 1) to create the most attractive and compelling alternative model possible; and 2) to find an effective way, through alternative media, "guerilla advertising", teach-ins, symposiums, and so forth, to reach a sufficient number of people so as to have some realistic hope of gaining meaningful traction.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

I feel that
1) New blood in the Green Party should push for adapting to the newer social media power that helped Bernie so it helps get the word out more strongly for the 2020 and smaller ticket runs. Our governor choice in WV got almost 6% of the state vote vs the duopoly choices, fairly larger than the other parties trying to get control here.

2) Use that strategy to also get noted and taken seriously as they push for ranked voting and a eventual change to the voting/politicking system we are saddled under.

Note: Why any new or 3rd party will stay blocked is due to the way the duopoly refuses to let others get a fair footing, they hate the thought of losing power to outside parties, until we get away form the monolithic duopolistic "winner takes all" method which is sadly immature of a system IMHO, we will never see any other party gain a foothold even if they get that 5% votes wise, and that 15% for debates the RNC/DNC corporation imposed to block the 3rd parties from good national exposure against the red and blue choices they prefer to offer.

3) that down ballot items for the Greens passed is a help as well, what with several states passing legalized Marijuana laws and ranked voting, ( a start in the right direction votes wise, and socially/legally pot wise), as states that legalized Pot have seen savings with no longer arresting and incarcerating and trying pot heads, plus the tax revenues the states make has been helpful for them to make free tuition for dwellers of those states, and even proposal for single payer health care (shock that Colorado did not pass it, but those republican and corporate dem legislators will feel that bite on the ass when they are up for re-election. As examples that things can change.

4) DO NOT allow MSM to get away with the tricks of "They can never win" or "They are crack-pots" and the candidates and people who wish to run must answer such bogus charges in clear, intelligible, and devastatingly spot on rebuttals as Stein did on several occasions, and also, when corporate comedians like John Oliver and others pull that, get the word out and boycott their show to drop ratings to get the point across. Remember, in a capitalist society, our wallets are potent weapons as they all want our money.

I just feel that if we can trim the Green Party down to a leaner machine and use that as the frame that exists(Minus the old thinking that has not worked), something could be built up that can shape and influence the future so that we could have a respectably potent party that may one day be a good addition to the political landscape that will stay able to be a People's Party and counter balance the pro-corporates. Of course we also need to reinvest in education and renew civics classes that help show how important voting issues and policy positions and move away from the kiddy school popularity BS we currently are trapped inside.

Just some ideas that came to me, hope this may have been helpful.

build from scratch. Greens have been trying to build a party for twenty years. After six or 7 presidential elections they're up to 3% of the vote. Add another 20 years and maybe they're at 10%. A significant number in terms of affecting the national election, but not winning numbers, not real party numbers.

the one thing everyone agrees with on the left - the Anti-Trump Party.

Or more seriously, the Independent Party. They always call everyone not registered Dem or Rep as Independent, right? So we'd have a head start!

Also, in thinking about founding documents and statements of principle prior to formation of the organization, we could rewrite the Declaration of Independence as our formal split with the Dems. So again, Independent fits. Right?

Actually, I like some evolution from Can't Stop the Signal's comments - gather together over issues, join together to stop Trump's climate denial and Ryan's Obamacare dismantling etc. etc., and we'll already be a big progressive organization. Then somehow keep everyone united and slap a party name on us.

We hold these truths to be self evident: That all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, political parties are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the voters - that whenever any form of political party becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new political parties, laying their foundation on such principles and organizing their powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Etc.

You don't hardly have to change it at all!