It didn't fly over my head at all - it ignored my previous comments where I indicated that anyone starting a third party movement should concentrate on getting that movement established long before they start fielding candidates in statewide races. Getting your name on a ballot when nobody knows who you are or what you stand for is putting the cart before the horse. Unless your intent is to be a protest nuisance, you don't build a movement with unknown candidates. You do what the Tea Party did - they established a grassroots movement, held rallies to allow their policy positions to be discussed/debated, signed up people who believed in those positions and wanted to keep in communication with Tea Party groups and then tried to coordinate with other Tea Party groups around the country. The Tea Party is/was a movement, not a political party, and they didn't go around putting unknown Tea Party candidates on ballots. They signed up in Republican primaries and looked for people who shared their views that they could support. They're at the point now where they could, easily, establish themselves as a national political party or just focus in particular states, and they'd have the grassroots support to get their candidates names on ballots without any problem getting 5,300 signatures to qualify.
You're suggesting that no-names should be able to get their names on ballots so that they can promote their names and their positions and grow a party around them. I'm suggesting that method is "bass-ackward". People don't need to get to know a third party candidate so much as they need to get to know what the third party is all about. A dynamic individual like Ross Perot can charismatically generate a lot of press attention but even then it's one man without a party. Establish a movement first, party second, candidates last.