You and me both, brother. I was a Libertarian activist for 30 years. Then I realized how the Libertarians were most often providing the margin of victory for “Progressives”, candidates that were always much more statist than the Republican that was defeated. I never saw it go the other way. We *always* got a more statist candidate elected when the Libertarians were a significant factor.
The excuse that the Libertarians “pull votes” from both parties simply does not stand up to the empirical evidence. The Libertarians have simply become a spoiler vote to get “Progressives” elected where they otherwise would not be.
The last case that I recall is in Montana, where Governor Bullock (D) was elected with a 1.5% margin. The Libertarian candidate took nearly 4% of the vote.
I think it happened last time in Virginia as well, but I do not have the numbers handy.
You are correct. I still think that when one candidate does not reach 50% +1, there should be a runoff between the top two. That would help the Libertarians to grow their party without damaging the chances of the next-most-libertarian GOP candidates in the near term. It’s one area where I actually think the French know what they are doing, they do all their elections this way.
But then, sadly, Libertarians are not good at long-term strategizing.