Buchanan too since the erroneous votes for him in Palm Beach Co.
Look, I'm willing to concede that it is POSSIBLE that (as the phrase at the time said), "More Florida voters went to the polls intending to vote for Gore." That's POSSIBLY true. It's also demonstrably true that a Nader voter was something like four times more likely to vote for Gore than for Bush.
The problem with those analyses, however, is they ignore a crucial question:
How in the hell was a candidate running with the background of the greatest peacetime economic expansion in recorded history AND the nation at peace and feeling good - how was that candidate even in a competitive race much less against a relatively inexperienced neophyte who had trouble with words more than two syllables long?
The failure to address THAT problematic question is the failure of the Democrats as a party. The question is not, "What happened the cost us the close election," it's, "Why was the election ever close in the first place?" And mostly it's because Gore was not a particularly good candidate any more than HRC was in 2016.
Obama and Clinton and Reagan were good candidates (although Reagan was prone to the gaffe similar to Biden nowadays), the kind you turn the sound off on your television and just watch and say, "Pretty effective."
Gore and HRC (and Trump and Bush 41 and Dukakis) were not.
Btw - while I don't dispute your overall assessment of the Green Party, I think such things like that become necessary so long as Coke and Pepsi insist on a trust with one another. Several Presidential races - certainly prior to the 20th century - had 3 or sometimes 4 "major" or "near major" parties, and the country survived.
Sure, it took a war, but it survived.