This is a very interesting conversation.   Before I continue, I do think the Green Party is important, and I do realize that their goal was to get 5%.

However, if they or any other group wish to become a viable party, isn't it important that they offer a candidate that will speak to more than 5% of the voters? Across the nation, Nader in 2000 received 2.7% of the popular vote.

For comparision, George Wallace received over 13% of the vote in 1968, John Anderson over 6% in 1980, and Ross Perot gained 8% in 1996. Going back further, Strom Thurmond received 2.4% of the vote in 1948 and in that same election Henry Wallace received 2.38%.   

Obviously there have been independent candidates and attempts at viable third parties. We can all play spin doctor but there are a few facts.   No candidate or party has been able to present a viable and reasonable alternative to the Democrats & Republicans.   I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it is obvious that there are deep reasons why it is the truth.

It appears that after several of us questioned Ralph Nader's viablility as a candidate, we were quickly set upon. We were not challenged on our opinions of the man, but rather on the fact that we challenged him at all. One of the gripes against Nader is that he is authoritarian and cannot accept challenges. Whenever he was challenged by the media he would blame the media as being biased. Sounds like his supporters do the same.

If a candidate is going to enter the public arena and be taken seriously, they are going to have to stand on their own merits and ideas. Drawing votes based on sympathy for their "plight" will not create a viable and respected third party.