Want Libertarianism? Vote Democrat (or Republican)

In The Joy of Federalism, Frank Foer writes about how states have passed legislation in areas the federal government has made no progress.

"New York's attorney general Eliot Spitzer, declaring himself a "fervent federalist," is using state regulations to prosecute corporate abuses that George W. Bush's Department of Justice won't touch. While the federal minimum wage hasn't budged since the middle of the Clinton era, 13 (mostly blue) states and the District of Columbia have hiked their local wage floors in the intervening years. After Bush severely restricted federal stem cell research, California's voters passed an initiative pouring $3 billion into laboratories for that very purpose, and initiatives are under way in at least a dozen other states."

Bill Bishop believes that congressional gridlock is what creates the conditions for this type of federalism to flourish.

On a message board, I saw a libertarian-leaning poster write about how he doesn't vote for a party, he votes for gridlock. He doesn't trust either of the major parties, so he favors a situation in which neither one has power.

It seems that the outgrowth of this strategy is that it pushes power downward to the local level (it feels unjust that us taxpayers are paying the legislative body all this money to not pass legislation).

All of this makes me wonder: is voting for libertarian candidates the most effective strategy for libertarian voters? Or is it voting for the most extreme, uncompromising candidates in the minority party, thus ensuring gridlock?