So, why bother voting for someone who can't run an agenda through? Because there is more to the game than running an agenda in immediately.

The President has the bully pulpit. When he speaks, people listen worldwide. Ronald Reagan taught any President how to defeat the Congress: Take your plan to the people first. If they support it broadly, the Congress is in a tough spot to be against it. Astute Presidents select slam-dunk issues in their first 100 days so as to build trust with the Congress and the American people. President Badnarik would have to be more politically astute than any President to have proceeded him because you have to bet that both parties would relish the opportunity to take him down. It might involve building coalition with a majority party in one of the houses. It might be acting on extremely safe initiatives- if any could be called that.

A Badnarik victory would send a huge message to Democrats and Republicans. It could mean that there was an issue Badnarik enunciated more clearly than the others; or he was on the side of an important issue both of the other candidates were on the other side of (the war again comes to mind); or the major parties alienated their bases sufficiently that enough went to Badnarik in protest. In any case, the strategists for the parties would have to analyze why things went as they did. They would learn to re-claim the issues they muffed, or the bases they alienated. They would have to, or lose them forever.

Of course, there is the craziest reason to vote Libertarian of all: you believe in the libertarian philosophy, and would exercise your conscience.

Libertarians can win high office, especially if that happens.