Thats a very small part of the reason.  The main reason that 3rd paries dont do well is because they dont have a credible campaign.  3rd party candidates can be successful, it just hasnt happened since the 90s and ross perot.  Ross perot was leading both clinton and bush at one point before he self destructed, and it is because he had a real effort.  

The reason why 3rd parties like johnson arent successful is they dont have money and spend most of the time complaining about lack of coverage instead of actually doing something about it.  

Now, come voting day and a 3rd party candidate is actually polling well then i would consider that candidate an option.  Otherwise, it is throwing away your vote and your chance to have the lesser of the two evils.  Instead, you will just get the bigger evil for 4 years.

No way. The majority of everything promised has never happened or was just making empty words for votes. While most in politics do this, he was a major offender on a larger scale. And this whole class warfare has got to stop.

What's horrible about Gary Johnson? 

is there a communist party to choose ?

Talking about Mitt and Obama here as they seem to be the one's who'll be the Candidates. (Or the most popular among all of America.)

Oh... and since I don't want to edit that again:

They are all bad in some sort of way, no Candidate has ever been perfect.

Alrighty. Johnson is a candidate too, but you wouldn't know it sadly, mainstream media hardly ever covers him.

Lack of coverage is a large problem, and quite honestly not entirely their fault. It is significantly harder for 3rd parties to do well because the Republicans and Democrats didn't like what happened with Perot, and made it harder for them to get coverage. And if people don't know who they are, how can they raise more money to compete? I think they're right to complain about the lack of coverage. But I also think that they do try to do something about it. It's just that without coverage, it's really hard to do.

The best example is the difficulty of getting into the presidential debates. Many people watch those, but if there are only two candidates in them, then how are the rest supposed to get their position out there? It's exclusion of other candidates based on an arbitrary number. The only limitation for getting into the debates should be based on if it's even possible for a candidate to earn enough electoral votes to win.

And ending up with a worse evil might not be bad. Maybe we need to fail badly for people to wake up and realize that things are not going well. At the very least, if you get a horrible person in for 4 years, there's a better chance of getting someone at least slightly better in the next election.

there is actually!! http://www.cpusa.org/

under the American system, it is throwing away your vote. If there are 5 candidates, with one getting 23%, three getting 20%, and one getting 17%, Mr. 23 gets all the marbles, and the votes of 77% of the population are rendered utterly meaningless. So it is natural that we try to accumulate as broad of political parties as possible, leading to our milquetoast Right-wing and Left-wing parties, because you need a candidate with as broad appeal as possible, for fear that the other guy is slightly more popular.