I understand your viewpoint, but don’t subscribe. Voting isn’t about supporting a system. The system exists, with or without your participation. Shy of a full blown civil war (which is more likely to make this worse than better), the only way to change the system is to use the system to change itself. The general election in November every 4 years is the last stage of a long process that starts with local parties and elections, weaves through the primary process, and culminates on election day. We need more people that are dissatisfied with the candidates to get more involved, not less, and to go to the early phases where a smaller number of active participants can have an outsized impact on the whole system. To me, one of the many alternative voting systems would be a huge improvement (I have preferences, but honestly just about every one of them is better than the First Past the Post system we use), so advocating for that and supporting local candidates that can push those ideas forward is where my energies go.

Both parties actively try to give voters from the other party reasons to be dissatisfied and disengaged. Don’t play into it.

Also

If enough people stop treating third parties like a wasted vote,

People might if any of the third parties had a serious candidate and a serious governing platform. Each of them is fundamentally flawed in one way or another, and a few of them are flawed from top to bottom. I get that you’re dissatisfied with the status quo, but which one of these 3rd parties would be able to actually govern and not make a complete and utter mess of everything? Could you imagine if one of the major 3rd parties actually won? It would be an unmitigated disaster.

Unfortunately, that means that you’re taking a vote away from the candidate from the two main parties that is closest to your views, which helps the candidate you oppose the most.

The two party system is truly problematic, but when it comes to November you have two options currently and voting for a 3rd party has the same impact as not voting at all. Voting for the candidate that you oppose the least lets you put a finger on the scale to at least try to avoid the worst possible outcome relative to your beliefs and values.

I sort of agree with you, but not in the way I think you meant it.

Vista’s problem was that it’s hardware requirements were too high for it’s time. Operating systems have very long project development lifecycle and at a point early on they did a forward looking estimate of where the PC market would be by the time Vista released, and they overshot. When it was almost ready to release it to the world Microsoft put out the initial minimum and recommended specs and PC sellers (Dell, HP, Gateway) lobbied them to lower the numbers; the cost of a PC that met the recommended specs was just too high for the existing PC market and it would kill their sales numbers if they started selling PCs that met those figures. Microsoft complied and lowered the specs, but didn’t actually change the operating system in any meaningful way - they just changed a few numbers on a piece of paper and added some configurations that let you disable some of the more hardware intensive bits. The result was that most Vista users were running it on hardware that wasn’t actually able to run it properly, which lead to horrible user experiences. Anyone that bought a high end PC or built one themselves and ran Vista on that, however, seemed quite happy with the operating system.