"The time has come to admit that the [Libertarian Party] is a failure and spend our precious time and money elsewhere."

It differs from state to state, Simon. In Georgia in order to run for a Congressional seat as a third party candidate you need 10,000 signatures. Only four candidates in the history of the US have gathered more than 10,000 signatures for a Congressional race. Often then the deadlines are designed to be too short. Some states even with only four to five parties on the ballot as it is have tried to institute even stricter ballot access laws. The Pennsylvania legislature for instance tried to increase the requirements on third parties in the 90s---increase the number of signatures required by 20,000 and shorten the deadline---but was vetoed by Governor Ridge.

Then what often happens is that even if you collect enough signatures by the deadline you'll be brought into court by Democrats or Republicans who will challenge your signatures without you having enough time or money to collect more. Its a very costly process that spends all of the campaign funding for third parties, so they can't spend it on actual campaigning.

In most places Democrats and Republicans are exempt from this process or have far fewer requirements. But they control the process and write all the rules for minor parties--they design them to be difficult. In most states its also easier for an Independent candidate to get on the ballot than a third party candidate to get on the ballot. Why? An Independent name on the ballot isn't any less clutter than a third party name.

So the point is we have a system where its easier not to form a new party, because you have an uphill battle. The Libertarian candidate who won 56,651 votes probably had to spend 95% of his available campaign cash just getting on the ballot. And he probably needed close to twice as many signatures as required by law to withstand lawsuits designed to take him off the ballot.

How are you going to win more than 56,651 votes if you don't have enough funding to get more visibility? That's why many would be Libertarian candidates run on the Republican ticket. ----That's why Ron Paul is elected as a Republican and not a Libertarian. There's no other reason.

Some ballot laws have already been taken to court and have been thrown out by judges. The judges have decided that they've been designed to make it difficult for third parties. That itself is expensive also---Perot's campaigns in 92 and 96 spent millions of dollars just on lawsuits.

California doesn't have a bazillion people on the ballot. It only did for that recall election because the ballot had no restrictions at all. California's ballot access law are actually one of the most steep in the country--you can't gain a ballot spot by petitioning. You need to gain a certain number of voters registered in your party to qualify for the ballot. And the party isn't even listed on voter registration forms if you don't have a certain number of people already registered, through writing in the party name. A lot of voters who would want a third party simply decide they want to be registered Republican or Democrat so they can vote in the major parties primaries.

There are a few states that have very lenient ballot access laws, like Colorado and Delaware and they don't have their ballots swamped with candidates names.

Primary elections for Democrats and Republicans also don't have dozens of candidates on the ballot, despite it being easier to get on the ballot. In Pennsylvania in order to be qualified for a major party primary election you just need 2,000 signatures. They don't have any problem there. But an Independent candidate currently needs 67,000 signatures.

The goal of ballot access reforms should not be to have more parties on the ballot but to have the parties that are capable of getting on the ballot have an easier time doing that. ---ie Without spending all of their money on petitions and lawsuits. Any party that can collect 2,000 signatures can also collect 67,000 signatures with the time and money. And given how few Presidential candidates even get 0.5% of the vote, why not give parties that receive 0.5% automatic ballot access for the next election, that would only be one or two parties. Instead, they have to re-do the process of petitioning every election cycle. (Republicans and Democrats don't. Some states don't even cite their majority status but 'historical reasons')

The point is to make party building less like a vicious cycle where you need organization to get candidates, but you need candidates to get organization.

Or, we can go back to the way things used to be---when parties weren't even on the ballot, and just names were.