Is there any value in voting for a third party candidate for President? Or is your vote "wasted"?

Only wasted vote is the one uncast. It is your duty as a citizen and responsibility as a member of the I am an American club. This apathy that my vote won't count is the ticket for politicians to continue to amass power as they can show no one cares. If you don't speak up you will always be the silent majority- regardless of election outcome.

Of course a third party vote is NOT a wasted vote, its a vote cast. I will add that not voting has the EXACT same outcome. There is more in play with a third party vote than "I like Jill Stein better than Trump, Clinton, or Johnson". A Presidential election is NOT a popularity contest and its not supposed to make you feel good about yourself.

A Presidential election is a knock down drag out battle with few rules and lots of shady activity going on. You might want to look at where the third party candidate is getting his or her funding. In many cases you'l find out that it is coming from PAC's and/or donors linked directly to either the Republican or Democrat candidates. Supporting candidates who can't win in an effort to drain off votes from your competitor is a time proven method of winning an election.

With a third party vote, you are basically abstaining, you are saying that backing your candidate is more important to you than which of the two major party candidates wins. If that's how you actually feel, then great. However, the actual outcome of the election has a huge potential to affect your life, the lives of your family, and the lives of your fellow Americans. Choose wisely!

The serious 3rd party Candidate gave US Bill Clinton Twice... Thank you H. Ross Perot

I think, for a 3rd Party to be a viable option for POTUS, they need to win at the State level in greater numbers first.

In the 58 presidential elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote or garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%); this does not count George Washington, who was elected as an independent in 1788–1789 and 1792, but who largerly supported Federalist policies and was supported by Federalists. Occasionally, a third party becomes one of the two major parties through a presidential election (the last time it happened was in 1856, when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs, who had withered and endorsed the ticket of the American Party): such an election is called a realigning election, as it causes a realignment in the party system; according to scholars, there have been six party systems so far. Only once one of the two major parties came third in an election, but that did not cause a realignment (in 1912 the Progressive Party surpassed the Republicans, but the party quickly disappeared and the Republicans re-gained their major party status). The last third party candidate to win electoral votes was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968, while the last third party candidate to win more than 5.0% of the vote was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and as the standard-bearer of the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996, respectively.

In the 302 gubernatorial elections since 1990, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote 49 times (16%), while six candidates have won election (2%). The last third party or independent governor to win was Alaska's Bill Walker, a Republican turned independent, in 2014.

In the 380 Senate elections since 1990, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote 32 times (8%); two of those candidates (0.5%) have won, both in 2012 (Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who both decided to caucus with the Democrats; Sanders received Democratic support during his 2006 and 2012 electoral campaigns). In 6 of the 32 races, one or the other of the major parties failed to nominate any candidate, allowing third-party candidates to perform better than usual.

Here's the thing. It's wasted because a lot of third party candidates think they can jump to the head of the line and run for president. If there is to be a viable third party, it has to and needs to start at the ground level and those people need to show that they are better leaders, stewards, options than the "prominent two parties." However, in order for that to happen, there a couple of things needed that we as a nation don't want to provide: Patience, hard work, dedication, and the will to keep it going.
Until we have people willing to and that have the four things listed, we will continue to have the "prominent two parties."

I've voted Libertarian in the past two cycles and I felt great! I am actively campaigning for Johnson and Webb this cycle. The Ds and Rs have spent their time competing with each other rather than doing what is right for America. We will never break the duopoly if everyone is afraid to vote for the best candidates.

I am all for voting your conscience. If the candidate that appeals to you most is a third party, then by all means vote that way. You still do your civic duty while preserving your "right to bitch". Better than not voting at all. However, that said, we all know that in the current system, third parties have no chance at getting enough electorial votes to win. So third party votes can and will take away votes from one of the 2 major candidates. If Gary Johnson takes 12%, that 12% will make a difference for who loses in a close election (and decide the winner, obviously).

for some reason if you don't get out to the polling stations and VOTE then you have wasted your your vote. VOTE, VOTE. just my 3 1/2 cents worth

exercise your voting privilege makes You counted.

The way I see it voting out of fear is a wasted vote. Saying you have to vote for one to prevent the other is an understandable instinct, but is not a viable way of voting. If you believe that Trump or Clinton is the candidate that best suits your own viewpoint, great knock yourself out and vote for them. If you think Johnson or Stein are best in line with your ideals, then vote for them. If we all started voting for who we believed in we would have less fear mongering in our national dialog. People would have to present ideas and not attack ads.