In the US we're pretty much stuck with a two party system. Belief of voting for a third party is considered throwing a vote away, at least when the mainstream media reminds the unthinking part of the masses who eat that up. Or it draws votes from a leader from one of the main two parties, and again the mainstream media berate the 3rd party candidate for costing a main party's win.
The real loss is that no real signficant change will occur in the US any time soon.
Two potential third parties had probably their best shot in the US in 2000. A third party not necessarily need to win the elections, but if it obtaisn at least 5% of state votes, for the presidential running, they would be granted federal funding to compete more evenly in future elections.
This is not a rant, but an explanation why the US may never have significant change.
The two dominate parties here (Democrat/Republican) have changed many states' election rules, setting the bar higher for a 3rd party candidate to even have their name appear on the voting form (the ballot) and each state is different. Meaning more resources for a third party to spend to get their candidates name to even appear in each of those state ballots.
One example of a hurdle, where one state just needed to collect 2,000 signatures from citizens residing from within that state leaped up to around 60,000. Imagine facing potentially 50 different states, and possible rule changes, in any of those as you run as an outsider for El Comandante. (The system keeps changing this. Should read ''an outsider f.o.r. p.r.e.s.i.d.e.n.t.'' not El Comandante.)
This information is not going to be found prominently/purposefully presented by the media establishment. Nor should it be by those who covet power.