Neither it seems, does voting for one of the two main parties.

You have a fourth option.

There are several other options, some more practical than others.

If only we required a hard majority of Americans to vote for somebody for them to win, then abstaining from voting could become an option with teeth. Then candidates would have to convince the public that they should vote for them, rather than just convincing the public not to vote for the other guy. Abstaining is, in my opinion, a respectable choice. Any vote is a vote of confidence in the system; if everybody who didn't like any of the candidates just stayed home instead of "voting for the lesser evil", then the farce that is our democracy would be made plain.

Abstaining isn't the only interesting option though. Another option is enfranchisement where instead of voting on the behalf of yourself you instead vote on the behalf of one of the billions of disenfranchised. National elections in developed countries don't just affect the nation in question but rather the world. The lives of many in other countries literally hangs in the balance during American elections but they are not permitted to participate. Perhaps worse, many Americans are not permitted to vote just because they are not recognized as 'citizens'. Next election, perhaps instead of abstaining, vote on the behalf of somebody who is not represented. An individual doing this is not going to change anything but a national enfranchisement campaign has the potential to be subversive.

We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means.

>>We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means.

Unfortunately, the American political system is not equipped to train and empower the type of enlightened leader(s) who can initiate and lead this type of discussion.

It does as much as voting for the major party.