Why Montana is a good state for third candidates?

[Stan]

Result of third candidates in Montana:

2012:
Gary Johnson, National: 0,99, Montana: 2,92

2008:
Ron Paul, National: 0,04, Montana: 2,17

2004:
Ralph Nader, National: 0,38 Montana: 1,37

2000:
Ralph Nader, National: 2,74, Montana: 5,95

1996:
Ross Perot, National: 8,40, Montana: 13,56

1992:
Ross Perot, National: 18,91 Montana: 26,11

1988:
Ron Paul, National: 0,47, Montana: 1,38

1984:
David Bergland, National: 0,25, Montana: 1,35

1980:
John Anderson, National: 6,61, Montana: 8,05
Edward Clark, National: 1,06, Montana: 2,70

Montana is one of the US States that is more likely to vote third parties. The results shows that are different third parties: maybe more Libertarian, but Greens too and general independents.

Why this?

[Hydera]

Protest voting in General.

[This account no longer in use.]

I have found that Montana is rather anti-establishment, if that answers your question. I feel that an 'outsider' candidate would overperform in Montana.

[DS0816]

A third-party candidate is probably going to need a percentage of the vote, nationwide, that is at a minimum in the high-20s percentile range to have a feasible shot at carrying any states. And the small states, in terms of population, would make carriage of any states more feasible. So, Montana could be a good example of that.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

They're pretty anti-establishment out there.