Dan Quayle has this op-ed in the Sunday, April 4, Washington Post. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
Quayle repeats the cliche that a minor party or independent candidate always injures the major party closest (ideologically) to that minor party or independent candidate. Social science and historical research substantially rebuts that idea.
Dan Ariely’s best-selling book “Predictably Irrational” describes the findings of research that describes how individuals choose, when there are three choices. “Predictably Irrational” says that if two of the three choices are markedly similar in some way, but one of those two choices is obviously superior to the other similar choice, that superior choice then gains a significant advantage over the third choice, that is, over the choice that is not similar to either of the other two.
A real-world example is the 1948 presidential election. Pollster Samuel Lubell, who later became a political scientist, learned that Henry Wallace actually helped Harry Truman. Conventional wisdom, including the Quayle op-ed, would predict just the opposite. Lubell’s book “The Future of American Politics” explains how Wallace helped Truman by running against him.
The Communist Party understood this, and in 1936 ran its own presidential candidate, Earl Browder, even though the party in 1936 was very much in favor of Roosevelt’s re-election. The Communist Party’s campaign was run to boost Roosevelt, even though superficially the party was “taking votes away” from Roosevelt.