Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Same lame scapegoat arguement that's been raised a bazillion times by apologists for the two-party status quo.
What Ross Perot proved is that a significant number of Americans would vote Third Party if it presented a sensible alternative platform on issues.
And the entrenched mucky-mucks in the Republicrat monopoly can't STAND the possibility that American voters may someday reject their idiocy and throw their pathetic butts out of office based on a principled stance on ISSUES.
IMHO, two-party rule is an antiquated and inherently unstable political power structure in the modern, information age. People naturally have a much broader mix of political views that can't be pigeonholed into two overly simplistic categories.
The only thing propping up the two-party system is $$$, voter apathy, and a nightmare tangle of election laws that make it difficult for minor parties to compete on an equal footing. But Perot proved that the more absurd that the Two-Party cartel gets, the more likely the People will give 'em the boot.
The problem with you is that you're too arrogant to admit that you LOST based on the pathetic, lackluster position of your own candidate on issues. Tough beans for you.
That puts your boy Buchanan in a truly bad light Willie.
What did he get last time?
Roughly 1% of the vote?
In your own words, that means that he failed to provide Americans with a sensible alternative platform on the issues.