I would to add to Scott and Erik’s commentary by reporting that Randy Barnett understands the basic voting incentives inherent to a structural two party system. That is all. Share
Nader does have a remarkable ability to synthesize every idiotic argument for a third party into one complete package. At this point, it seems worth noting again that electing George W. Bush wasn̵
As others have already pointed out, Matt Miller’s latest column will be the worst argument in favor of a third party until whichever of he or Tom Freidman submits the same column next week.
Dan Hopkins asks some questions about third party advocacy. For my part, I wouldn’t say that I’m so much against the idea of a third party as skeptical on both the process and outcome side