America's founders wanted to avoid what they called "factions" — what we call political parties — to the point of leaving out any mention of them from the Constitution. George Washington proudly didn't belong to any party.

But, alas, the nation's first president was also its last nonpartisan one. The framers could scarcely have imagined that not only would political parties quickly come to control virtually every aspect of American politics and governance, but that just two parties at a time would dominate the nation for most of its history.

The frustration that so many Americans feel today about lack of choice on the ballot — especially in presidential elections — is understandable. In this era of deep partisan polarization, both parties often seem to be in the grip of extremist dogma that doesn't reflect what is, still, a broadly moderate citizenry.

What voter hasn't thought, I wish there was a third choice?

The organization known as No Labels is offering one, at least in concept, with a $70 million effort to gain ballot access in all 50 states for the 2024 presidential ballot. There isn't yet a candidate's name attached to that effort. It is, for the moment, all about breaking the two-party system's iron hold over state ballots.

That hold is enforced in most states with complex, often expensive ballot-access rules that favor the two major parties and erect procedural roadblocks against everyone else. Breaking that hold is a valid goal.

But if the No Labels effort ultimately ends up fielding an actual candidate to go up against next year's Democratic and Republican nominees (No Labels organizers say such a candidacy isn't a given in 2024), then this noble exercise in democracy could become a dangerous gambit.

That's because this particular election will likely include a major-party nominee who represents an existential threat to democracy.

As valid as many of the No Labels principles are, their project should stay on the drawing board for now, if there's any chance it will heighten the risk of a second Donald Trump administration. And there is ominous math suggesting that almost any serious third-party or independent candidacy could do exactly that.

The Post-Dispatch editorial board met last week (virtually) with representatives of the No Labels effort, including former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. The state's last Democratic governor, now a practicing attorney, Nixon served in office as a moderate restraint to an increasingly radical-right state Legislature.

In that sense, Nixon personifies the centrist philosophy of the No Labels movement, whose other notable backers include Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

"Clearly we're at a time in this country where other options should be explored," because voters are "checking out," Nixon warned during our meeting. "People are losing interest in our democracy." Others in the meeting cited movement in both parties toward the ideological fringes in recent years.

No Labels prioritizes political cooperation over partisan brinkmanship. On contentious issues such as abortion, guns and immigration, it favors policies that balance individual rights with commonsense restrictions, mirroring where polls show most Americans are (and where the two major parties too often aren't).

The organization's critics, mostly Democrats, fear it could usher in another Trump term by drawing votes from President Joe Biden. The organization has pushed back, presenting itself as more of an "insurance policy" (in the words of some of its supporters) to ensure there is a procedural path to offer an alternative to Trump if Biden's campaign tanks before November 2024.

"I have not nor will I ever do anything for Trump," Nixon emphatically told us.

No Labels points to polls showing that strong majorities of voters want neither Trump nor Biden. That construct, though, ignores the very different nature of the two men's support.

Yes, both are underwater in their approval ratings — but Trump's core base tends to strongly support him, while most of Biden's support is soft. Common sense suggests that a third-party campaign by a centrist like, say, Manchin or Hogan would draw heavily from centrist voters currently leaning toward Biden only because they find Trump unacceptable. Conversely, there's little reason to believe that Trump's famously loyal supporters are yearning for a moderate alternative.

That common sense is reflected in polling. FiveThirtyEight reported last month on five recent surveys that all found that introduction of a third major candidate would advantage Trump more than Biden.

But the biggest problem with the No Labels project is that it begins with the premise that the two likely major party nominees next year are equally unacceptable. This simply isn't true.

That's not intended as a Biden endorsement. We have argued (and still do) that Biden should consider stepping aside and elevating a younger Democrat who can connect with the party and the country in a way that he clearly can't. To the extent that America needs an "insurance policy" to prevent another Trump term, Biden himself is largely to blame, by selfishly insisting on a re-election bid that all the polls say is shaky.

That said, Biden's accomplishments in office are significant, and he has ushered in a badly needed return to normalcy in the White House after the tumultuous Trump years. Undebatably, Biden's party has drifted leftward in recent years, but Biden himself is a relatively moderate president who has shown the ability to work with the opposing party.

Trump, on the other hand, attempted to overthrow a valid election, has suggested the Constitution should be suspended to return him to office, and has telegraphed that in a second term, he would fundamentally transform the federal government to scuttle the guardrails on the presidency and consolidate his own power.

It isn't hyperbole to say that Trump is a dictator in waiting. We're sorry if that qualifies as a "label," but there is voluminous evidence, in Trump's own words and actions since 2016, that it's an accurate one. And any electoral effort that might divide the many Americans who recognize that fact risks making his well-documented yearning for autocracy into a horrific reality.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: Clay Banks at Unsplash