Is today the birth of the Libertarian party?

I think the majority of voters know nothing about Gary Johnson.  MOST people vote D vs R or they vote "i like the pres, re-elect" vs "i don't like the pres, vote the other guy!"  Until L can compete with billion dollar campaigns, the Lib. party doesn't really stand a chance, unfortunately...I did vote for Johnson yesterday and did not feel like I wasted my vote because I couldn't stand behind a vote for Robamney, but I agree with the majority of Johnson's platform. 

It will take a long time for this to change.

I always have to stop and remind myself that this group tends to be higher earning, higher educated, etc etc, so we are a terrible representation of the general population.

I'm trying to remember back to when Perot got into the mix. (i was barely paying attention back then)  What catalyst allowed him to get into the debates?

I honestly think he could have won that election if he wouldn't have gone all weird the last month or two.

he had his own money on par with the D and R campaigns.  (who were far more limited in their spending)

I, too, did not vote R or D. I've long thought the two party system is tearing the country apart. Why switch parties at all? Why feed the party politics?

Along with the demise of the electoral college, I'd love to see the dissolution of the two-party system.

I'd love to see Jesse Ventura on the 2016 ballot.

I believe there was less than $500B spent on the Perot election. This year it was closer to $6T. Independents can't compete, unless all of the Super-PAC's were to throw behind one of them.

I've been thinking a lot recently about how a third party candidate can get traction.

I beleive Perot got 25% of the vote.  He was a billionaire who spent a lot of his money to get his message out.

I think a successful 3rd party candidate would have to be quite wealthy and willing to part with a good amount of his wealth to get the message out.

In another forum, I have had some discussion with someone who was quite active in the Libertarian party.  It sounds like they are quite a splintered group.  If they could get cohesive and find the backing of someone like Buffett, they could have some success.

It seems like I hear many people like myself who are fed up with the extreme leanings of each party.  Whatever happened to moderates?  Are they just lazy/complacent at election time?

Your numbers are 3 orders of magnitude too high, but yes, the two party system is a virtual monopoly with enrty-costs too high for even a simple billionare.  

Josh won't like this, but here goes. I looked hard at what Gary Johnson had to say, I watched the debate, and I didn't see any substance. I figured a vote for GJ was a vote to try to get fed funds in the next election. I'm all for it and I even saw the exit polls that said that 33% consider themselves independent. I think that's a strong number. And the R's will lose some people like my friend Tony. But I think you have to come up with a platform and that's where you'll shoot yourself in the foot.

Or, maybe you don't need to and you can just come up with a catchphrase like "Hope and Change" and "war on women". But until you have the media backing you like BHO has, you'll never win that way.

This estimate of the cost of the election seems a little high, more than a factor of 1000.  CNN and others peg the cost at $4.2B. 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/campaign-finance/index.html

Yeah, big typo. should be $500M and $6B. I just get so used to discussing government spending in B's and T's.

Half of the reason I prefer Johnson is that he's not a D or R. The other half is, I see no substance out of any of the candidates. Obama/Romney/Johnson. Based on the points they claim to support, I prefer Johnsons.

I knew my vote would be "wasted" but voted for Johnson anyway.
I wonder what the numbers would look like if EVERYONE voted for who they actually wanted to win?

I'm not ready to become a "member" of the Libertarian party (I'm registered Independent) but they've certainly caught my eye this time around. 

I went to see Johnson speak in person a couple of weeks ago.  I was impressed.  He speaks well, he was successful as governor of NM, and he would do well in the debates.  He is willing to talk about the difficult choices we face as a country.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party appear hopeless to me.  Each is captured by its more extreme elements.

It is unlikely that the Liberaterian Party gets any traction, but I feel it is the best hope for those of us in the middle.  I voted Liberaterian in this election, and intend to actively work for liberaterian principals next time, whether that is within the Liberaterian Party or in some independant movement.  Doing nothing just isn't an option, and I will no longer vote for a candidate that is simply least worst.

Republicans and Democrats have a vested interest in keeping it a two party system.  Despite being universally hated, House incumbents historically win about 95% of the time.  Senate incumbents about 85%.  That is impressive job security.

Big business has a vested interest in the two party system.  It's cheaper to pay off two parties than it is to pay off three.

So no, a third party is not coming any time soon.  As long as people keep telling me I'm wasting my vote when I pull the level for Libertarians, this country will keep its two party system.

This. Politics is run by money, and as much as Obama wants to talk about how many individual donations he got... that isn't what put him in the WH for 4 more years. You can't have a platform of small government, and expect big donors to give you the money needed to get into the WH where you will not give them what they want. Same goes for Legislature and the money the parties give to key seats.

Punctuation is your friend.

That's where most people miss the point... it isn't failing, it is stronger than ever. You will never get rid of a two party system... because you will never get "us vs. them" out of the minds of everyone. You could completely disband both parties today, and they would still reform because people would do it. The parties did not "take" control from the people... the people freely gave it.

Even during the founding of this country, there were those for limited government, and those for more federal control. And it is silly to think that 200 years later that people are going to stay the same. Things change... and even those that wanted more federal power in the beginning never could have imagined what we have today.

What the problem is isn't the two parties... it is the money controlling them. The people gave their power to the parties and now they will never get it back short of a serious melt down... which is possible. The parties merely pander to get the votes, but they no longer represent the people's interests... they represent big money, big government, and big business. Elections are about who panders the best. But make no mistake, today the parties are focused on getting more money, and paying back those that put them in office... and those interests are not what is best for you and me or this country as a whole. It is about what is best right now for their contributors.

Trying to put the Gennie back in the bottle at this point is darn near impossible. Do you honestly think the parties are going to cut the purse strings to set things right?

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Your first statement is probably right, but that would be a great result.  I care nothing about party, so if a movement based on liberaterian ideals forces the major parties to move that direction, that is fine.  If they don't, then they would cease to be relevant, and that would be OK too.

I going to take a long term approach.

I refuse to vote again for the lesser of two evils.  I will find a candidate that I can feel good about supporting, regardless of likelihood of success in a single election.

The 2 major parties aren't going to change unless forced.

If a third party, Liberaterian or otherwise, begins to gain some support, even if it is far less than enough to get elected, it will have profound effects.  Perot and the Reform Party never got over 20%, but their success, limited though it was, forced the major parties to take notice.  Both major parties began to co-opt the Reform Party positions.  So, in some ways they won, even though they never became a major party.

Considering he only pulled 1% of the vote I'd say no.  As someone earlier in this thread said a 3rd party candidate would need to be independently wealthy to get the media buys required to run for president.

Yes, but the Liberaterians only got 0.3% in 2004 and 0.4% in 2008.  Momentum?