>
> Except none of those "Libertarian-leaners" were running for President this year.
>
> You said yourself that if a third party gets any momentum at all, the two major parties will co-opt their message and integrate it into their own platforms. Well, rather than supporting a GOP or Democratic candidate I can't stomach, I'd rather show support for the Libertarian party, in hope that if enough like-minded people follow my lead, the two majors will have to take notice of what the Libertarians stand for and work to include those ideals into their agendas.

True. If you live in a state with open primaries, this is especially good: you can still vote in the primary (where you have the best chance of influencing the direction of a party) of the big two parties while being a Lib. Voting strategically for the third party in a general election isn't a bad idea if the race isn't close, but if one of the two major candidates is more Libertarian-leaning than the other, I'd say that voting for that one is a better call in a tight race.

With the presidential election this time, though, I can understand how neither is very Libertarian at all. I figure it'd be a toss-up, so if you honestly had no preference between Bush and Kerry otherwise, might have been better to vote Badnarik. But my comments were really more in general than in this race specifically.

Stephen