could someone from the nader camp summarize, to humour me, in as logical a manner as possible, why the following argument does not hold?
a) bush is a particularly vicious menace to the world and replacing him with kerry would make a small but significant difference (i will throw in a simple example of something that may improve: environmental protection).
b) the best (and perhaps only) way to make third-parties and their candidates viable is to start at the state/county/town/city level, both in terms of growing such parties, and fighting the practices (winner-take-all, lack of runoffs in elections, etc) that make them infeasible.
thank you,
--ravi