This is not true. You seem to be under the impression that the only thing that matters is the end result -- who becomes president -- and not that there's also a ton of influence with the information leading up to and including that end result. Two big things that have happened this election are third parties getting a ton more interest than they have in past years, even though it's still relatively small, and the massive divide in the DNC between hillary and sanders supporters. Even if Hillary wins, the fact that those two things even happened will be cause for concern and will help influence something.
Consider the UK elections last year. We have two big parties, Labour and Conservatives, and two smaller ones, Liberal Democrats and the newer UKIP. In 2010, Lib Dems got 23% of the vote and 57/650 seats, and UKIP got 3% and 0 seats. Now look at 2015. Lib dems shrunk down to 8% while UKIP surged to 12.6%. Yes, they still only won 1 seat, but that's still a huge % increase for what was effectively a protest vote. Did anyone expect them to win? Not really. Did that result have an influence anyway? Absolutely -- it's basically the reason why Cameron even suggested Brexit in the first place, as a sort of "ok, we'll have a vote just to make you lot shut up". It later blew up in his face but that's a different story.
Even if third parties gain a ton of support I still have very little faith in either of them winning, but all of the attention they're getting and how they're receiving a significant amount of growth will be setting off alarm bells saying "we should probably take a serious look at this instead of just ignoring them for another four years".
You're comparing a parliamentary system to the US's system. That's the first major issue here. The president isn't decided by the Congress, and you don't really see multi-party coalitions
I still fail to see how this is a "literal life and death" situation for anyone simply because they ticked a different box. One of the big two parties will end up winning anyway (and even if they didn't, hey, you won) and we'll be stuck with either horrible option #1 or horrible option #2 for four years. The president doesn't have absolute power to do whatever they hell they want, especially in trump's case where the vast majority of congress hate his guts.
edit: also "vote for X or you will die" is a stupid as hell thing for anyone in a first world democratic country to think; what is this, turkey?
Gonna take a specific example here: the affordable healthcare act. Alot of my relatives say it didn't do enough, could've been better, and do the "both parties are corrupt" attitude for voting.
Our two candidates have specific positions on the ACA. Trump is going to get rid of it, with the help of a republican congress. Clinton will keep it, and it will continue to be challenged in the Supreme Court for eternity and back.
Now, whether you think the ACA is good, or should be changed in some specific way, or support single payer, the ACA currently provides insurance for millions of Americans. People that otherwise, would likely be without health insurance due to its high costs, or be paying much more on it. Now, that demographic the ACA covers is mostly going to be lower income, and generally will proportionally include more minorities.
For someone in that situation, they don't get to say "Oh, both parties are the same, either one winning is fine". Because one of them means they can afford to go to the doctor, and the other takes their insurance from them.
If you're generally well-off, and had healthcare insurance covered before the ACA (keeping with the specific ACA example), then this isn't something you have to worry about. You're freer to vote 3rd party, because a republican presidency doesn't affect whether you get healthcare coverage. And again, proportionally, whites are going to be much more represented in that group (and Asians, but we get a nice heaping dose of "anchor baby", "ban the Muslims", and "give South Korea nukes", etc.) .
Hence the statement you found offensive.
Basically, even if you think the difference between the parties is small, small is a world of a difference for someone on the edge economically, medically, etc.
I understand if you want 3rd parties to grow. And if you want the system to change. But that's not happening at the national election. You have to start bottom-up on this. If you're just going come out every 4 years and complain about the national election, you're not doing anything to change the system. You need to be active during the mid-terms, and before that, locally, from the state to city to the neighborhood.
Not sure if you were a Sanders fan, but your argument reminds me of one, so I'll just say this: Sanders started off in the civil rights movement, and ran for mayor of Burlington after gathering decent local support and having ran politically a few times before. And that happened because of the general political climate in Vermont favoring a more progressive lean, because there WAS A MOVEMENT already. It was that position that let him eventually go for House of Representatives, and from there to the Senate.
You think Bernie Sanders the mayor of Burlington gets anything done on the scale that he managed this primary season?
You campaigning and being active in your immediate scene can very well have a major impact in introducing a 3rd party to the area, and from there provide a platform for the city, which gives you an avenue into state positions, etc.
