I have posted on this elsewhere, and I've dlegated this article to sone of our site writers verse in this very issue.
The short answer is this.
Political Parties are NOT supposed to be the defining source for relevant issues. Positions on issues comes from individual perspective, NOT group mandates.
To that end, people think of others in the context of their political affiliation, and NOT with their individual position on issues. THIS IS KEY.
For years, I have not thought in the context of "Democrat" vs. "Republican." I've thought in terms of "Totalitarianism" vs. "Capitalism." In addition, there are two main subset scales that are rarely considered, which are "social" and "economic."
When looked in this context, I think: What is the best way I can advance my own internal agenda with as many people as possible?
The hodgepodge comes in our plurality requirement for election, as opposed to requring a majority in a multiple party race. To that end, a third party becomes an EMOTION-based distraction. For instance, there are three major presidential elections that have, in effect, been decided by active third party action:
1. The 1912 Presidential election: Theodore Roosevelt, a classically libertarian/conservative president, was a former two-term president from 1901-1908. He was very concerned that his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, was so awful as a president. Roosevelt could not displace Taft off the republican ticket, so he ran as a third party called "The Progressive Party." This party has absolutely zero connection with the current statist "progressive" movement, by the way. It was also nicknamed the "Bull Moose" party as well. Anyway, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with less than 42 percent of the vote. Together, Roosevelt (27%) and Taft (23%) garnered 50% of the vote; certainly most of that vote would have gone to Taft had Roosevelt not been in the election.
2. The 1992 Presidential election: We all know what happened. Ross Perot came out with the "Reform" party, and got 19% of the vote, while GWH Bush got 38%. Arguably, people who voted for Perot were dissatisfied with Bush's performance, but exit polls would have given enough votes for Bush had Perot not been in the race to win comfortably.
3. While the Green Party didn't have a significant effect on a national basis, the 100,000 votes that Ralph Nader received in Floriday would unquestionably have gone to Al Gore by a large margin. Certainly, 70,000 more votes would have gone to him, and he would have easily won Florida and the presidency.
In all three cases, the effect of a third party candidate prevented the mainstream (ie, republican or democrat) candidate most affiliated with the third party, and led to the election of the OPPOSITE party.
Many people call this a problem with the current system. Frankly, I agree to an extent; I actually believe runoff elections should be mandated if more than two candidates are running in a race, and the votes come to less than 50%. But that is another matter.
The more pragmatic answer, though, is SEPARATE the POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION with the POLITICAL PARTY ISSUES. This sounds a bit confusing, but it's based on something a bit more easy to understand about human nature, which is this: We don't always know what we LIKE, but we MORE than likely know what we DON'T LIKE.
So if we look to the Republican Party NOT as a political PHILOSOPHY, but as an ORGANZATION OF INDIVIDUALS who share common conservative and libertarian philosophies, then we can more easily understand the nature of how to address our concerns politically. In extension, the Democratic Party can be looked at as an organization that would negate our own philosophies; therefore, it is more important to unite in the NEGATION of such an action than it is to try to highlight unique attributes of OUR shared philosophy.
Think of it as this: Let's say a football team has a rift between two coaches. One coach wants to run all the time, the other wants to pass. But the IMPORTANT objective is not just to win the goal on whether the team should run or pass. The OBJECTIVE is to beat the other team...PERIOD! After the goal is achieved, THEN it becomes important to sift out the differences between the elements of the victorious team.
But if one of the coaches said, to hell with the other coach; I'm going to take players and start a THIRD team, then this would actually result in 2 teams being so denuded that the remaining team, the original opponent, would womp either of the two split teams. At THAT point, it becomes moot whether the original team could run or pass; neither team now has the wherewithall to do anything but to subject tot he whims of the oppressor.
So, the conclusion is this: We MUST be united in our fight against the statists. To that end, we need a SINGLE organization to muster our forces. That organization happens to be the Republican party. BUT... we don't have "Republican" principles. There IS no such thing, to be blunt. We have CONSERVATIVE or LIBERTARIAN principles. The key is to UNDERSTAND this VERY IMPORTANT POSTULATE, becuase this is NOT going to change.
I have it on good authority that the Democratic Party, probably instigated by Rahm Emanuel, will muster instigators to promote a conservative third party. In fact, this is probably a lot easier than trying to get everyone to defend the democrats. Of course, this will NOT get reported by the press, but if I were to look at a political election as a war, this would be the tact I'd play if I didn't have truth and rationality on my side.
But that's neither here nor there: We must STOP ALL PRETENSE that a third party will HELP our cause. It's easy to emotionally disconnect yourself from the process, but it ultimately bites you.
I'll have more on this later, but these are the basics behind the debate.