Is a vote for an independent or third-party candidate a wasted vote? Is it fair to accuse a candidate not running with major party backing of being a “spoiler”? Is the potential for vote-splitting a compelling reason to adopt major reforms to our electoral system?

These issues have been debated in America since the Founding Fathers cautioned against the two-party system. Some notable presidential elections in which third-party candidates have been criticized as spoilers include Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Ralph Nader in 2000.

It’s been a busy month on the privacy front.

For starters, word got out on August 5 that Russian hackers stole 1.2 billion usernames and passwords across several kinds of websites. Then, Facebook got into hot water — again — when it decided to force its risky Messenger app on unwilling users.

With growing concern over the situation in Iraq, it brings relatively recent and prolonged combat in the Middle East into the hearts and minds of U.S. citizens. Not to mention the bill we footed for it, and continue to do so. More importantly, it brings to mind the loss of life over the span of these numerous conflicts.

One could sum up the current situation in one word: uncertainty. Uncertainty in our own country’s future on the world stage.

In the past, party affiliation was beneficial for presidential candidates when it came to getting elected. Republicans and Democrats may likely have a team favorite: perhaps George H.W. Bush for the GOP or John F. Kennedy for the Democrats. Independents (or non-affiliated voters), on the other hand, are a fickle bunch.