Some might say that any support for a better system is good, despite the motivations, but I disagree. All this support will vanish as soon as our current system chooses the "right" (well, the left) candidate.
interestingly, those two elections were massively different. Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote both by tiny margins. The election was statistically speaking basically a tie, and settled by something only slightly stronger than a coin flip. The largest margin in terms of raw votes in any single state was 1.7 million (Gore, NY). Two states were closer than 0.1% (NM and Florida).
Clinton won the popular vote by a much bigger margin, and lost the electoral vote by a much bigger margin. She won California by over 4.2 million votes (blowing Obama's 3.2 million vote edge out of the water; he won that election by a total of 10 million votes.) She had stronger-than-expected showings in areas where she was already strong, and weaker-than-expected showings in areas where she was weak. It was a much more polarized election, with fewer close results (no states under 0.1% margin) and more blowouts.
The system is broken, each example will bring more people to the group that wants reform. Yes the losing side will run faster, but both parties have a large contingent of members that would like more options.
now where voting like that proposed in the article is a good idea is state and local governments where the effect is not so out sized.
people always want change when they don't get their way and worse when some get their way they ignore the fact that nothing they supposedly supported happens, they are just merely happy they won. oddly or worse there are those just happy the other person lost and could care less who they themselves vote for