I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.

So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.

Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.

This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"

No, it's people who don't vote or won't vote for the lesser or 2 evils that are part of the problem. Change is incremental and people rather not vote if they can't get what they want immediately. My hair stylist still hasn't registered to vote and she's 30yo.