I don't care for the Libertarian Party, primarily because of its views on immigration and trade.
However, the notion that they're "spoilers" who help Democrats is wrong on two counts. First, supporters of the Libertarian Party are just as likely to otherwise vote for Democrats (based on social issues) as Republicans (based on fiscal issues).
More importantly, the idea of a candidate being a "spoiler" and "stealing votes" is nonsense. No party owns anybody's vote. They need to earn them. If people are voting third party, it isn't because that third party is stealing anything. It's because the leading parties are running such pi$$-poor candidates that people are casting protest votes.
Case in point: the GOP establishment loves to blame Perot and his Reform Party for Bush's 1992 loss. Perhaps if Bush weren't such a lousy candidate those people wouldn't have been voting for Perot to begin with.
“First, supporters of the Libertarian Party are just as likely to otherwise vote for Democrats (based on social issues) as Republicans (based on fiscal issues).”
Problem right there.
The cost of democrat social issues eventually bankrupts the national treasury, without exception. This is why the phrase “I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.” is as philosophically disingenuous as it is intellectually moronic.