I think we need to step back. Wasted votes are very subjective, so let's put this in a framework before getting on to the specifics of what you're asking:

The US has a bloc voting system. There are many other systems that some would argue are much more functional and fair.

So a bloc voting system really only means that whoever gets the most votes gains 100% of the representation for that position. So there can be one president and even if only 12% of americans vote for him, but hes 1% more than the next guy, he gets 100% of the representation.

Now in order to get that representation, people who might not agree on much will team up. Essentially the goal is to team up with ANYONE you can BEAR to be teamed up with to get the hopeful win. Notice that so many Americans are single issue voters? This isn't an accident, this is a product of our system. The system HAS to be this way to function in the most effective way.

Yes we can probably agree that its not ideal. Norway, where I lived for some years, has Proportional Representation. You don't vote for the Prime Minister there, the way it works is you vote for a PARTY. That party gets representation based on votes: 10% of votes to yellow party? They get 10% of "congress". The party with the most votes also gets the Prime Minister position, and they choose from their party. So it still has a push to get people to cooperate by giving that position, but you don't have to group up to get that representation and you are much more free to vote for whoever you wish.

So lets get back.

You COULD equally dislike all options. You could equally like all options. In those scenarios it really doesn't matter who you vote for, and you could argue that its "wasted". But I would argue that its almost impossible to look at all the hundreds of issues the candidates hold views on and arrive at "equal" like or dislike.