Idaho State Journal columnist Ralph Maughan started the discussion on third parties, but I would like to extend that discussion, because there are some gaps in the story.

First, while the Libertarian Party (full disclosure: I'm a life member) has had no success at the national level (while Ron Paul is a member of the LP, his victories in his races for the House of Representatives came in races in which he ran as a Republican), the Libertarian Party has had some impressive successes at the more local level, and many of those candidates went on to win a re-election victory. These indicate that the electorate will accept a third-party candidate, and that those candidates can have significant impact on the issues.

Second, while third-party candidates can never win by receiving no Electoral College votes, important milestones can be achieved. In 1972, the team of John Hospers and Tonie Nathan received an electoral vote: this marked the first electoral vote for a woman and the first electoral vote for a Jew, both by the vice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party.

Third, the spoiler effect is open to some dissection and consideration. It has been repeatedly suggested that voting for the Libertarian candidate takes votes from the Republican, allowing a Democrat to win — spoiling the Republican's chance. But studies have consistently shown that most Libertarian candidates take votes from both sides, thus balancing out and canceling the spoiler effect. (This is not the case, for example, with Green Party candidates, however.)

Fourth, while ranked-choice voting is a legitimate alternative voting mechanism that eliminates the "wasted vote" syndrome, there is an even simpler mechanism that achieves the same victory with less trauma to the current mechanism and is more readily accepted by more voters.

That solution is Approval Voting, which in the last election was adopted by Fargo, North Dakota. By eliminating the need for voters to rank their choices, it greatly simplifies the process of deciding whom to vote for. The change to the ballot is trivial: instead of placing a check mark next to a single candidate, you place check marks next to ALL of those candidates of whom you approve.

The tabulation process is trivial: the candidate with the greatest number of approval votes wins. The opportunity for a centrist candidate to win over two extreme candidates on opposite sides is very great, as the dark horse is certain to be approved by many more of those voters who favor one extreme or the other than would the other extreme candidate.

If you disapprove of all the choices, you hand in a blank ballot (for that race), and that counts as a vote for None of the Above. (The only true wasted vote is one in which you check all candidates.)

It can also be shown mathematically that Approval Voting is less subject to counter-intuitive effects than Ranked-Choice Voting.

Such counter-intuitive consequences can include the confusing situation where down-grading your vote for your favored candidate IMPROVES his chances, or that raising his ranking can actually hurt his chances.

Finally, the nature of the wasted vote itself is a tricky matter. I would argue that a vote for a candidate who is certain to win is MORE of a wasted vote than a vote for a candidate who truly, or even just more closely, represents your particular political philosophy but who has no chance of winning.

Vote your conscience, not the candidate tagged with victory by the odds-makers.

Dan Karlan,

Pocatello