There are just so many shades always that having extreme positions almost never gives new insight and in general is not helpful.

Neither would a conservative policy dismantle the social security completely nor is a further development of the social welfare or even universal healthcare anywhere near to socialism.

This exaggerated arguments just obstruct the real important issues: efficiency of the health care system, economical incentives for properity, justice of generations, sustainability, general educational chances, upwards mobility.

The US is far away from any danger to being socialism. The longer you think about this the less time there is to think about other things.

It takes more than that, it takes a fuckton of work to even get a measure on the ballot by referendum, let alone getting a member of the legislature to do it for you. That's at a state level, the amount of sacrifice in making a new party viable would probably include ensuring the guy you hated the most won several elections in a row as you gained traction, and that's IF you succeed, if you fail, you've got nothing to show for it. You have to fix first past the post voting, you really think that's a google search away to get that changed? If so, clue me in on the phrase I should be googling, if it's that easy, I'm happy to make the world a better place:)

I'm talking about the people, not activists. If the people really cared about a third party they would google for such a thing, find the Green Party or Libertarian Party or one of the even smaller ones, then sign up, spread the word or volunteer. Thousands of people do actuall do this, but millions upon millions more don't.

This is out of ambivalence, sure, but ambivalence is telling. It means the current parties are fine. It means those millions of people are not uncomfortable or upset enough to want to really change anything yet. You have hinted in the past this is due to manipulation, which I agree could be a part of it, but I think it's more likely that most people are just pretty damn comfortable overall, don't care about those worse off that much and/or are generally centrist anyway.

All I want is universal healthcare, better programs for the homeless and mentally ill and a refocus on rehab versus punishment for drug offenders. Those are my main reform priorities, and most of them fall under the Democrat party line. The fact those Democrats can't get it done because we have a very antagonistic two party system by design does not mean we need a "more left" party like the Greens who would do a lot of shit I don't want. They wouldn't have any easier a time doing stuff since a massive party to their right would remain anyway. Also if you think most Americans are to the left of Hillary Clinton you're fooling yourself.

The two left and right centrist parties are fine. Socialism and Libertarianism are failed extremes, in their pure forms. More moderate Socialism, like social democracy (which is how I define myself), is basically unhindered Clinton Democratic, which we already have. We just also have a system that prevents it from running away with the store.

While some of them certainly are ignorant, there's a great many that know perfectly well who the other parties are and just can't see "throwing away their vote" on them (not a sentiment I agree with, but I understand how people arrive at that conclusion).

So they choose the plutocrat with the more pleasing rhetoric or the one that "isn't that other guy!" yet again and nothing at all changes.

I think you're jumping past several other reasons on your way to your conclusion, it doesn't automatically follow that the only possible reason that nothing changes is because people are "fine with what we have" (mostly or whatever other qualifier you want to toss in as well). That's "one" possible reason, but hardly the only plausible one, probably not even the most plausible in fact.

I don't really see you proposing logical alternatives. The "throwing away the vote" scare can't possibly effect the population on the scale you're suggesting. I admitted manipulation like that has a minor effect, just not to the extent you seem to hypothesize. Also I would argue it is likely rooted in the majority considering extremist parties to be ridiculous, rather than some deep conspiracy to keep people comfortable and stupid.

Gerrymandering is a "conspiracy" of sorts, but there isn't really a conspiracy as far as our shitty first past the post voting system goes, just inertia combined with many of those in a position to advocate for change being personally benefited by the status quo. First past the post is well known for having the exact problems we have, this isn't some whack-job hypothesis on my part, this is literally the reason many democracies have discarded first past the post voting systems. Just because you only see radical alternatives doesn't mean there aren't or couldn't be others, they very well could be, even only moderately different choices, in fact, just not under our system.

Our system is a bit archaic as democratic systems go, it only takes a little bit of exploring in just Europe to discover that.

I don't think I need to propose my own alternatives, I thought it was clear there were several well known and well implemented solutions from which to pick...

You're not hearing me. You're debating something entirely different. This is not about other democratic systems. This is about most Americans not giving a shit. I am saying they don't give a shit because they are more or less fine with how things are. You have suggested in the past they don't give a shit because they are ignorant and manipulated.

That is the debate here. If you want to talk about how I change the government and election process if I were all powerful you and I likely would have a ton of common ground. We can't do that though, we are not all powerful. I like talking with you but you continually tend to live up to that Liberal stereotype of thinking you're obviously right and those who disagree are ignorant in some way. That is what annoys me and what I am aggressive with you about.

It makes us look bad, if nothing else.

The part I'm trying to communicate and seem to be doing a bad job of is simply: I think you're wrong that most Americans are "fine" with our system. I think most have more than an inkling of the cost of moving away from existing parties under our current voting system (though most may be unaware of alternative systems, they do understand ours) and are unwilling to pay said cost, that's not at all the same as being "fine" with the current system.

That's where we disagree.

Or in another way, I believe there is ample evidence that the following statement is wrong, "The "throwing away the vote" scare can't possibly effect the population on the scale you're suggesting."