I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Kevin]

The Nader effect might seem bigger than it was, or maybe smaller to me than it was. When it came down to it, Nader never really had much of a chance to be president. Around here, he was a punchline, instead of a candidate.

That's the Nader effect. Not that he had any chance of winning, but that, in running, he changed the outcome. Ross Perot has much the same reputation on the right, although he was at least slightly more credible as a bipartisan spoiler.

-Jester

Right, which I think is what Shoju was getting at. Though as you mention the margins on the 2000 election were so close, that as you say if only 10% of the Nader voters voted Gore (so 280,000 votes) that the results likely would have been different, though it depends some on where there votes were cast.

2000 Election Results

Perot on the other hand was really the last serious 3rd party, while he didn't manage an electoral vote he did come close (I think Maine is where he did best actually getting more of the vote than Bush there). He pulled down nearly 19.7 million votes vs the 2.8 million Nader got. He was getting them from both sides though more from traditional Republicans, yes, he was also getting traditional non voters as that election had a higher turnout (55.2%) than the 2000 election (50.4%)

1992 Election Results

It's a bit of apples vs oranges; they are both roundish, and both fruit, and both had an affect but they delivered it different ways. I think Shoju was just looking at a different scope than you.


Edit: I believe 1968 was the last time 3 people actually won electoral votes. 1968 Election Results