No, that example only proves my point that it is "at best" a wasted vote.

In the two recent times voted for a third party effected the outcome, 2000 and 1992, the third-party votes had the perverse effect of actually electing a candidate to the White House who stood for more or less the OPPOSITE of what the third party voters wanted.

In 1992, Perot voters were generally much closer politically to the GOP, but they split the "conservative" vote and elected Clinton.

In 2000, Nader voters were generally much closer politically to the Democrats, but they split the "liberal" vote and elected Bush.