Subject: Re: 1968 Chicago Democrat Convention Redux?
Who says? Where in the Constitution does it say voters are compelled to vote for the person that can win?

It doesn't. Again, there's no compulsion here. Voters are free to vote for whoever they want.

But if they choose to cast their vote for someone, and the results of their decision are results they don't like, they shoulder some of the responsibility for helping that outcome happen.

If a group of voters cast their ballots for a person who can't win, and that enables the major-party candidate that they didn't want to win to take the election, then it's not just the fault of the other major-party candidate for not "winning" their votes. They have agency. They chose to cast their votes a certain way. It is also their "fault" for not casting their votes in a way that would get them an outcome they wanted, rather than a feeling they wanted.

If someone liked Nader - for little things like food safety, seat belts, true progressivism versus Gore Corporatism...they 100% fulfilled their responsibility - and voted Nader.

No, they didn't. Because had they thought carefully about their choice, they would have realized that voting for Nader wasn't going to move them any closer to food safety, or seat belts(?), or true progressivism vs. Gore Corporatism. It just got them President Bush.

They're perfectly free to make that choice. And Gore supporters were (and still are) perfectly free to point out that it was a dumb choice. Nader had no path to winning, and Gore losing didn't help advance any of the things that the voter wanted to happen.

Your vote actually has an effect in the world - a very tiny one, but one that (in connection with everyone else's votes) determines the outcome of an election. The responsibility for that effect doesn't just lie in the candidates. Some of it rests with the voter who decides what to do with their vote.