Not to long ago I responded to a column by Bruce Bartlett. Now it seems that a liberty oriented party might be viable with political reforms. Throwing aside this unlikely possibility that the powers to be would never lesson their hold on electoral mechanics, let alone a major paradigm shift in the form of a parliamentary government or the abolishment of the Electoral College, Mr. Bartlett once again fails in terms of what third parties have meant historically. 
Given the burden of local, state and federal taxes one certainly wonders why Bartlett hasn't seen the concerns of the Socialist Party being met on a daily basis. Bartlet states,
I see nothing in the way parliamentary systems govern that seems better than what we have.
Ignoring the fact that Mr. Bartlett's understanding of the European parliaments is limited, (he might note that a majority party or coalition chooses a prime minister and that France has an elected Presidency), he provides no basis for his conclusion that our system is better. Sardonically one could retort that a parliamentary system creates more gridlock making governing harder, a great idea from those of us in the liberty 'field'. Certainly the prospect of extending human freedom to the point of allowing competing and even extremist views be represented, is in the interests of justice and fairness. But for some its all about the futility of the 'fruits'.
Apparently the great consternation now is that third parties in general are not viable. So picking on the LP is just sport for Bruce. Apparently he has enough interest to watch the proceedings of the LP on C-SPAN. Bartlett chides the average libertarian;
They get great pleasure out of congratulating each other on their adherence to principle and on how much better they are as human beings than those who compromise and work within the major parties.
It does take a certain type of individual to but up against a rigged system. They may be freaks, but they're our freaks. People do it because they desire change and are willing to step into the arena of Goliaths with their own small slingshot. Compromise has brought us wars, debt, corruption and loss of life and liberty. If a single honest voice cannot step forward and issue a fair minded call to protest, what mind set have they snookered us all into ? The fact that we cannot win and feel as millions of Americans have in the past is not sufficient reason to fold one's tent. Indeed very few parties like the LP or Greens carry the water for ballot access reform . Ending military occupations, drug prohibition and other mettlesome policy that otherwise makes a good day bad.
Bartlett advocates;
First, change state laws to make it easier for new parties to get ballot access. Right now, the laws are rigged against them. Second, allow cross endorsements and aggregation of votes.
No problem on the first. Bigger one on the second. Fusion is not good. It drowns competition and discourages meaningful dissent. It's not always about 'winning'. It's about about fair representation. It's conceivable to retain the Presidency via the Electoral College system, yet reform the legislature to a more European type demeanor. Proportional Representation, IRV, Range or SVT voting. These are the exact themes and ideas that elected Bill Redpath to the current chair of the Libertarian Party.
Congressional districts were conceived to represent 30-40 thousand people and add seats as the country grew. New Hampshire enjoys a lot of liberties and has a huge state house delegation. Suppose we added 2 Congressman per district and tweaked some of the electoral mechanisms to allow a couple Greens or Libertarians on to the floor where real CSPAN happens. I'm willing to bet a Phil Maymin or Eric Schansberg would do very well in the eyes of a curious public.