And all I'm saying is, since the folding didn't come until
much later, you hardly need to start that early to have practically the exact same effect. Consider:
- In 1796 and 1800, there were multiple candidates, despite the two "parties".
- In 1812 and 1820, the Federalists won no ECVs -- it was a second DR candidate who posed the main opposition in those races.
- 1824, 1832, and 1836 -- in all, more than two candidates for President won state electoral college votes
- There was a brief period of two party rule in the early 1840's, but then in 1848, 1856, and 1860, at least three candidates won at least 10% of the popular vote (and the third place winner in 1852 won nearly 5%).
- Really, the first time we had two party races for more than two consecutive US Presidential elections was after the Civil War, when the modern two party system that still exists today came into being.
- Even then, serious Third Parties would threaten the Two Party System at various points in our history, starting with the Populists in the 1890's, then the Progressives, Dixiecrats, Reform etc.
So what do you need to get multiple parties in America "from the start"? Well, the earliest I think you'd ever need to go is the Jacksonian Era, though you could make it even earlier if you really wanted.
What you need is fairly straightforward -- more 1824's. If the third parties of the 1830's and 40's can do better than OTL and win (more states) in such a way as to deny any other candidate a majority in the Electoral College, then this will either become a fact of American democratic life, or the country will look to fix the issue, likely with an Amendment creating a simple runoff election. (Even if the states continued to use FPTP voting TTL -- which is not guaranteed even without any further federal or constitutional action -- the US could then still be as multiparty as, say, Britain.)