I'm saying that you choose the candidates in the primaries, then choose the party in the general election.
You're saying the candidates are crap and you don't want to vote for any of them.
These aren't mutually exclusive positions. It doesn't matter if they're all members of an entitled, grifting, lying, psychopathic class. Maybe that we can agree that that has always been the case (did you like the kids running for class president?). But in that class, there are differences between the members. Even if one doesn't like any of the candidates, one has a responsibility to try to pick the better one and the better party.
Given all that we have been through since the '68 election, and especially since 2000, I find it baffling that anyone who cares about politics could think that it's better to throw rocks at both sides than to try to push the arrow of progress a little closer to the better direction.
If enough sensible people turn out, then dramatic progressive changes are possible. Contributing to the noise that causes people to stay home is counter-productive.
No, I'm not saying "clap louder". I'm saying work your fingers to the bone (in your own way) to get your favorite candidate on the primary ballot and increase support for them. If they don't win the primary, suck it up and support the nominee. Sitting the general out is counter-productive (punishing your side won't make them become more progressive). Political progress is almost always incremental.
As for replacing the system, I dunno. Either you let the people choose their leaders, or you don't. The people choosing is better.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's my take.
FWIW. ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.