I'm not, Ross Perot played a big part in getting Clinton elected so it'd be weird for them to take issue with him. More recently the democrats blamed 2000 on Nader running third party on the assumption that all of his votes would've gone to Gore otherwise.
You're right, I misread. I meant to allude to the fact that Perot's run was really the only viable 3rd party campaign in recent history. Nader got about 2% of the popular vote, Perot got ten times that, at about 20%. Candidates looking to replicate or even one-up his success need to, likewise, circumvent traditional media gatekeepers to get in front of voters constantly, incessantly.
This is bordering on misleading. In Florida, Gore lost to Bush by 537 votes. Nader had 97,488. There was no need for a conspiracy that all or even most Nader votes would have tipped it.
I'll accept that, sorry and thanks for clarifying.
To be clear voting third party in anything close to a swing state rather than whoever you feel is the lesser of two evils is not something I would do. I don't think third party voting makes sense in a US (or UK) system beyond being a protest vote, I was just trying to show what happens when a remotely supportable third party candidate emerges.
I don't think trying to shame those who did is going to do much to win them back for more than one election cycle without providing a candidate they can believe in though (somehow a lesson the democrats continue to drag their heels on every single time). Especially when in the case of Florida there were other factors on hand that were far clearer miscarriages of justice which they decided to accept.
