I looked only at the first one. It contradicts sources I saw back in the day. Regardless whether I'm right, the point stands that good 3rd party voters can hand the election to the greater evil.
That's odd, because it backs up sources that I recall, and it links to citations from 2000, and not our vague recollections.
As the first link points out, Monica Moorehead, the Worker's World Party candidate, got 1,804 votes. David McReynolds of the Socialist Party collected 622 votes.
The people who visited for Moorehead, or for McReynolds are the ones you should focus your ire upon. Not those who voted for Nader.
The Socialist Party is more to blame for Bush winning the office than Nader.
Oh, and all those non-voters? They were also partially responsible. And all those who refused to steal ballot boxes from heavily Republican district are also to blame! Because preventing evil justifies everything. Including torture.
Then you must think pacifists like the Amish are immoral.
And somehow have a magic ball to say what the future brings, and what the alternative future might have been.
This seemingly reasonable argument (assuming that you do not reject violence as fundamentally immorally ) is how Augustine turned a religion of peace into one with soldiers, as Just War theory.
But it doesn't stop. It also twists a phrase like "imminent threat of violent attack" into "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future" and "enemy militant" into "all military-age males in a strike zone, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
The calculus of violence is very coarse, yet you want to hang us all on its balance scales of greater or lesser violence and harm.
