Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
HE DID CHANGE THE DYNAMIC...OF THAT ELECTION.
Gore lost...George W. Bush won.
And Nader was a significant factor in that lose/win.
THAT is a matter of fact...a matter of history.
Nader's 3% votes did influence the 2000 election but not as much as Perot's 19% impact on GHW Bush in 1992.
So what? Is someone advising banning Third Party candidates? There's banning assholes on both sides of the JPP extremist aisle.
Yes, it's a problem. The best solution I see is ranked voting for all elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_...al_election#Ralph_Nader_"spoiler"_controversy
Many Gore supporters claimed that third-party candidate Nader acted as a spoiler in the election, under the presumption that Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race.[91] Nader received 2.74 percent of the popular vote nationwide, getting 97,000 votes in Florida (by comparison, there were 111,251 overvotes)[92][93] and 22,000 votes in New Hampshire, where Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes. Winning either state would have won the general election for Gore. Defenders of Nader, including Dan Perkins, argued that the margin in Florida was small enough that Democrats could blame any number of third-party candidates for the defeat, including Workers World Party candidate Monica Moorehead, who received 1,500 votes.[94]