A simple poll

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 12:31 PM)Benton Wrote: You're not wrong. But... if the point is to effect a change, the fastest (and just about the only way for the majority of us who don't make six figure campaign donations) is to show political strategists you're willing to vote for someone who reflects your interests. The numbers from this election will be analyzed a lot over the next few years. Just using simple numbers, if one party sees a 10-15% dip in turnout, while a third party sees about the same amount in growth, party leaders are going to look at why. What issue was it, was it just the candidates, was it use of social media, etc.

Many — maybe even most — don't like the direction of the country. Voting for a third party voices that displeasure. And the people who manipulate the system realize you've got to keep people happy if you want them to stay stupid enough to let you rob them blind.

Ross Perot had 19%. Just saying. Did Ross Perot sustainably change the political landscape? (This is an honest question, although I think he didn't).

As for your other point. I don't think third party voters are regarded as voices of dissatisfaction. The fact that about half - half! - the people don't bother to vote at all should be regarded as such. But no one seems to care too much about that form of protesting (which it is at this extent). 
So why should they care about some Johnson or Stein voter. They are either irrelevant - or take away votes from one party, leading the other to victory. A fact so evident that it will always cap third party's success.
Democrats do not go after Ralph Nader or Jill Stein voters by shifting their policy in their direction. Jill Stein causes no such thing. If at all, Bernie Sanders does.