Ralph Nader’s 2000 candidacy did much more harm than good

To the editor: Ralph Nader’s intelligence has never been in doubt, but his grip on reality has sometimes been a different matter. (“There’s no such thing as a political ‘spoiler,’” Opinion, June 10)

His criticism of the two-party system is valid, and I agree with it. But to say it’s not possible to split the vote in a way that helps an opposing candidate is absurd.

See the most-read stories this hour >>

Presidents can only do so much good and so much damage. I would put George W. Bush’s U.S. Supreme Court appointments during his two terms as president in the damage column — damage that could have been avoided if Nader had not insisted on running as a third-party candidate in 2000.

I hope Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders doesn’t make the same mistake.

Carmen Reid, Santa Barbara

..

To the editor: When a person runs for president knowing he cannot win — understanding the potential of tipping the results in a direction he doesn’t even want or forcing the election into the House of Representatives — but nonetheless runs to make a political statement or for an ego massage, that is the definition of a spoiler.

Donald J. Loundy, Simi Valley

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

MORE FROM OPINION

Go ahead and hate Gawker, but don’t cheer its downfall

Donald Trump’s post-Orlando conspiracy theory

The winds of change are blowing in America — just not California’s way