Readers React: Question for third-party voters: Do we need another Ralph Nader?

To the editor: Those who might be inclined to vote for the Libertarian candidate ought to think very carefully. (“Meet the libertarians — the #NeverTrump movement’s last hope,” Opinion, May 19)

No doubt they realize that their candidate will not become president. Furthermore, each such voter probably has a preference between Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump if the Libertarian candidate does not win.

However, by voting for someone other than their second choice, they might very well wind up with the least preferred candidate.

Remember Ralph Nader in 2000? The intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court probably would not have been necessary if Nader had not run; undoubtedly the vast majority who cast ballots for him would have preferred Al Gore to George W. Bush. So, by voting for Nader, they actually acted in their own worst interest.

In theory it is fine to vote for one’s most preferred candidate. But applying the actual calculus of presidential elections, a vote for a third-party candidate can often have the effect of electing the least preferred. Such voters could effectively be voting their nose to spite their face.

Joel Drum, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: Democrats want to regulate business, while Republicans want to regulate people’s private lives. Libertarians don’t want to regulate either one.

But the bad guys don’t regulate themselves. It was the under-regulated subprime mortgage market and the deregulated banking industry that caused the Great Recession, and neither the Republicans nor the Libertarians will honestly acknowledge that fact.

Libertarians are essentially secular Republicans. Clinton may not be the most lovable candidate, but the Democrats’ view of what should and should not be regulated is the only philosophy based on reality.

Michael Asher, Valley Village

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook