Hrmph
I'm very much on the fence about Sarvis. On the one hand I am solid capital 'L' Libertarian, but unlike a lot of Republican candidates Kucinelli isn't somebody I actively detest. I don't agree with everything he's done, but on the whole he's done the right sorts of things in the past. So it's not the true 'lesser of two evils' scenario that it usually is (like the Presidential races have been for the last decade), but clearly Sarvis in principle is the sort of person I would prefer to actually be in office. That's not likely to ever happen, precisely because so many people don't actually vote for the people they want, just against the people they don't want.
The idea of Kucinelli losing by a margin smaller than the votes for Sarvis fills me with ambivalence. Obviously I don't want some tyrannical socialist in power, but at the same time it is only cases like that where a GOP candidate would have won but for the LP that are likely to get the attention of the GOP and get them to pull back from big government and the divisive morality legislation that causes libertarians to desert them. That and it might shake loose some GOP voters who are doing so just because they think voting LP would be 'throwing their vote away' since if they're going to lose anyway, they might as well vote their actual conscience.
Every vote is an endorsement, not just of a person, but also of a platform and a system. Change will not come if we keep just nodding our heads, tacitly endorsing a platform of continued overspending, regulation, and fiat moralism that needlessly destroys the lives of peaceful people.
In light of all this, I'm leaning toward Sarvis.