I know it’s not what you hear in newspaper editorials, but there really is an academic consensus on US third party voting.
The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.
John D. Hicks,
Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one of the other parties can be trusted to absorb it. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up…The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is “throwing away his vote.” [A] glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably he most powerful vote that has ever been cast.
Carl Beijer is a blogger. As far as I can tell, he’s not an academic. I’ve never heard of an academic use a pen name, but it’s hard to know anything about him if he’s hiding his identity.
Just because he says there’s an academic concensus doesn’t mean there is one. He has to prove it. I haven’t finished reading this yet, but I’ll probably post a new reply when I do.
He links the papers, it’s also on Wikipedia if you don’t like the blog format.
