True or false major third parties can spoil the chances of a major party candidate?

Government homework....i am stuck!True or false major third parties can spoil the chances of a major party candidate?
True, true, true, true, TRUE, TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!





Sadly, we were ';privileged'; to have 8 years of Clinton because of Ross Perot.





Then, in the 2000 election (see Wiki article below), there was all the controversy over Bush's votes in Florida. The difference between AlGore and Bush in the total US Popular vote was 543,895... in which ALGORE had WON the popular vote, but Bush won the ELECTORAL vote.





Now, Ralph Nadar received 2,882,955 popular votes. His voting base may have gone to AlGore, but then, it may have split enough to sway the other way. If you look at the chart in the article, the other ';conservative'; MINOR candidates that ran were Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips. The popular votes for these three, combined, were 931,346... enough to overcome the Algore ';edge'; in the popular vote for Bush had these candidates NOT ';pulled away'; these CONSERVATIVE votes from Bush. In this way, the Florida Electoral vote controversy (the ';Hanging Chads';) may NEVER have needed to happen at all.





But the ';Major'; third parties can, and HAVE, influenced the outcomes of elections.








Republican from before she was born... and PROUD of it.True or false major third parties can spoil the chances of a major party candidate?
True.





Example. Ross Perot was a third party candidate when Bush I was running for a second term. Clinton was running against him. Ross was considered a conservative so he split the conservative (Republican) vote with Bush I. Whereas all the Liberals (Democrats) voted for Clinton. So even though Clinton did not get the majority vote, he got more than Bush I or Perot so he won.





It went like this.





Clinton 43.01% of the popular vote.


Bush I 37.45%


Perot 18.91%.





Had Perot not been in the election, Bush probably would have gotten those votes, for a total of 56.36% which would have been a clear majority and he would have won.





Bottom line, if you have a third party candidate, the candidate of the major party most like him will see ';his'; voter base split and he will lose.





That could happen in 2012 if Hillary decides to run. I see that as a possibility I think Obama is cutting her out of the loop and I am willing to bet that around the 2010 election he will say she not effective and he will fire her. That will be too late for her to run for any office in the 2010 election and knowing her reputation, she just might run to ensure Obama loses, as payback.
it happened when Teddy Roosevelt changed his party to the





Bull Moose party (progressive) and took votes away from Taft so Woodrow





Wilson could win the elections
That's the IDEA, isn't it. But if the third party can spoil another party's chances, then the third party becomes a major too.
True, Bob Barr, H. Ross Perot and many others even a comedian, Pat Paulson who ran on the Stag Party platform(he garnered 3% of the vote AFTER he withdrew in 1968).
True its simple math.3rd parties usually take from both parties.
Yeah, Mr Nader has really roughed up the elections in the past years. Last time he almost got 1% of the votes
Why do people assume Ross Perot didn't take votes from the democrats?
Ross Perot
True - E.g., Ross Perot.