IF (not everyone is willing), one is going to participate in the electoral process in the US despite the fact that it will NOT fundamentally change the system, then one must accept the limitations OF the system inherent to its design. Primarily that one of the major parties will win each cycle.
That is an artificial limit, not a legal or material one. The popularity of both parties is at an all time low. More people skip voting rather than vote for someone they don't like. Given any other option, lots of people will vote for someone other than the existing monoparty.
As a good example: Mamdani and Bernie ran AS DEMOCRATS because they know the math and the numbers. Their policies are popular but the parties are stronger.
And in spite of this, the Democratic party is trying to destroy their campaigns. Bringing that dude into a conversation is shooting yourself in the foot. Because you were simultaneously proving the party cannot change and refuses to.
The fact that the party cannot AND will not change is indeed my point. It it too tied to money and the status quo to ever pivot to completely altruistic stances. They INTEND to destroy and campaign like Bernie, Mamdani, or even Hogg who intends to change the status quo
My apologies for misunderstanding you my friend.
Actually they ran as Democrats because they are capitalist anti-communists. Hope that helps.
You are correct about it being an artificial limit but incorrect in your last statement. People have proven again and again that they will not vote above 20% for a third party candidate. The best funded was Perot and he didn't obtain one electoral vote. The system is rigged to prevent change.
The replacement of the whigs by the Republicans literally couldn't happen under the current system. Thus my advice to spend five minutes of your day casting a ballot for the best viable option (there aren't good options usually) and the other 23hrs of your day tearing the modern system down.