One of the astonishing by-products of the Quaker movement was the two-party system.
Before the Quaker leadership presented its historic Peace Testimony to King Charles II in 1661, a political faction was supported by arms – or an army of its own. It’s something we’re still seeing in conflicts around the globe.
Quakers, however, proclaimed:
We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move into it, and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight any war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.
Quite simply, without removing themselves from political and social revolution, Friends avowed to do so on the basis of argument and example, rather than brute force and violence. They would suffer another two decades of fierce persecution before seeing their vision upheld.
What they created was the possibility of a loyal opposition – one that would press for change and speak out for the oppressed, the way the prophets did in the history of the Hebrew Bible – while still respecting the office of existing authority. To work, moreover, it had to be a two-way street, as the Bible stories also demonstrate.
What seems to have happened in recent decades in the larger American political scene is the loss of that mutual respect, despite differences. Any loyalty to the larger good is lost in the process.
We need to get back to that two-party foundation. Or Woodpecker will keep pounding.
Jnana's Red Barn 
You are of course correct that prior to 1661 a political faction was supported by arms. But there is significant evidence suggesting the pacifism and absolute passivity were present in some strains significantly before the Restoration and even in some pre-Quaker Seekerism.
Withdrawing altogether from political involvement, as earlier Anabaptists did (Mennonite and so on), has a long history. Add to that the underground church in its roots long before that.
As we look at these, what inspiration can we draw for multi-party activity today, especially in emerging democracies?
These are history lessons that need airing.
I like talking to you – you are well informed. Your posts make for interesting reading.