From what I've read it just seems like a lot of the people there have a huge independent, special-snowflake streak and value that more than putting together a viable ticket.
No, it's people who believe their views are correct (and we all do) and want the party that represents those views to nominate the people who most agree with those views.
Now, I agree with the premise that the party needs to think pragmatically, and ally with pseudo-libertarians, to ever really move the needle in our direction, but I think you're confused as to what "special-snowflake" is. That would be those on the left who think the government should provide everything from them (that government should be god), or those on the right who think the government should impose their views on everyone (that god should be government).
More tokens added before they were 100% finalized, here is the final tally, Feldman makes the debate:
Johnson 226
Petersen 106
Perry 105
McAfee 97
Feldman 89
McCormick 45
Shannon 23
Vermin Supreme 20
Zeman 8
Sterling 5
Robinson 5
Reid 4
Donaghe 3
Griffis 1
Dearn 1
Smith 1
That's a good debate, although I'm alarmed that 5 delegates wanted Shawna "I think 'libertarian' means 'conservative with no resume to run as a Republican'" Sterling in there.
Feldman has some interesting ideas that I think should be further developed by libertarian thinkers (diminishing the influence of money in politics, making the party more racially diverse, "balance and credit," etc.), Petersen represents the pro-life wing of the party (I really want to see pro-life libertarianism hit the mainstream, instead of being the weird outcast of both movements), Perry represents the purist wing, and McAfee is actually very knowledgeable about libertarianism.
Oh, and Johnson is literally the most qualified person running, regardless of party. Two-term governor of a purple border state with business experience.
