I think they mishandled their attempts at third party candidates and shouldn't have bothered. I don't think the creators of the site understand minor party candidates very well.
Nader has to reflexively state the most liberal position on every issue even to get to his historical 2.6%, which IOTL was considered to be a disappointment, despite the fact that this is not a fair description of his politics, and he did get some support from Perot/ Reform types. George Wallace is almost as bad, he is kind of fun to play, but again struggles to get his IOTL level of support and can't deviate from the right-wing, segregationist message, and there is no reason for him to campaign outside of the South. He basically has to run as Strom Thrumond.
Speaking of Thurmond, there is no Wallace '48, Johnson '16 (or '12), Benson '16, or Birney '1848 options even those these candidates wound up doing as well or better than Nader. No Breckinridge or Bell options in 1860 either, though Breckinridge may have had a better chance of reaching the White House than Douglas. The side is inconsistent.
I think they should let the computer play the minor party candidates and just have a few questions where the player-candidates have to respond to them or address them. When they do this in the scenarios, it seems to work well. And I would treat Perot in '92 as well, no sane player is going to follow the OTL Perot strategy between June and September 1992. For 1912, I would treat Roosevelt as the major party candidate and Taft as the minor irritant, Roosevelt in fact had the support of much of the Republican Party apparatus and had a small chance of winning, whereas Taft had none. Taft really should have not run for re-election.