Well, you're arguing against John C. Fremont and the Republican Party, Mr. Silverback.
I mean, first, there's the obvious fact that Alan Keyes or Bob Barr will receive oodles of votes, just like Fremont, who received over 33%. How could one expect any less, especially after Keyes blistering performance in Texas, where he sucured a whole 0.67% of the vote in that liberal bastion.
Second, there's the brilliance of your rewriting of history. Here I had been thinking that the third party alternative in 1856 was Millard Fillmore of the Know Nothings, who got less than 22% of the vote and only won a single state. I also thought he was the third party guy because the Whigs barely existed in 1856 (it was their last convention) and most of his party bolted to the GOP after his run failed. But no, because of the power of your conviction, I now realize that it was Fremont who was the third party guy! And wasn't the outcome of all those abolitionists voting third party over immigration instead of voting GOP great! We ended up with one of the most incompetent presidents in history, a man who could have prevented the Civil War and did nothing. But hey, what's a million American deaths between friends, especially if a Republican gets elected later?
Okay, sarcasm over. Serious question:
What if Keyes (or Barr, or some other third party wonder) does better than average for a third party guy, say ten times better than Keyes did in Texas. If he gets 6% of the popular vote (and we know most of it would come from states that are currently red or battlegrounds) who would be elected? Who would be inaugurated? Who would be Commander-in-Chief? Who would appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices in his first term?
Answer: Obama.
So, we can fight McCain on a few issues and get what we want on the others, or we can argue with Reagan and have a President who disagrees with us on EVERY issue and is an untested twit to boot.
And you guys choose option B. Like I said, that's for idiots.