One thing left out in all this is the US Constitution and the actual process we have in place. This article is all about how the writer 'feels' on the situation, but the facts of our system prevent it from being a truly binary choice. The elector process is a check and balance on a 'binary-only' system. Federalist 68 goes pretty in depth into it. One of the things that make us a Republic, not a direct Democracy. the elector process is to be one extra check and balance in the Presidential election process, offering the possible reset button if needed. This is why it gives a minimum threshold the candidate must meet.
The people have made it, in most elections, a binary choice because they were told that is the only choice they had. Just like in this election, how many 'held their nose' because they were told they had to do that to stop the other person. They weren't voting for who they wanted, they were voting against who they didn't want.
The reality though, back to Federalist 58, is that it doesn't take a third party to win outright. It just takes the opportunity to influence the elector count to keep one of the major parties from reaching 270.
But the fact of the matter, voting your values, even if it is for a third party is never a wasted vote, nor is it 'helping the other guy'
It is all about the electoral college and understanding how that works. A third candidate does not need to be on the ballots in all 50 states to be competitive nor to make an impact.
All the third parties need to do is keep the two major party candidates from reaching 270 EVs.
If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the race is decided by the House of Representatives for president and Senate for VP. The House makes their choice based on the top 3 EV winners (in contention). But it gets even more interesting if the House fails to come to a decision, then the President is the VP selected by Senate..
Remember Bush v Gore; Bush won, 271 to 266 electoral votes. Only two EV's shifting to a (or multiple) third party candidates could have meant that neither major party candidate would win outright, it would go to the House. In the Bush v Gore case, a third party only getting on the ballot in ONE state could have theoretically made them competitive.
Give the 12th Amendment a read.
This is like a big red reset button.
This is also not unheard of. This has happened twice before in our history, so out of 45 presidents, those are bad odds but not impossible odds. In addition, in four other elections, what would be considered a 'third party' overtook the given two major parties of the time. That is six times out of 45 presidents. (13% change in the 'binary given')
So no, a third party vote is not a wasted vote. This is why it is critical people vote their conscience and values, not the game.