I can very well relate with the sentiment you're expressing. I too think we are mostly in agreement with each other. And I also think it is a shame to vote to mitigate risk. It just shows how engaging the available options are.

Probably all democracies which exist today are of the representative kind, and I don't see a logistically viable way to make it otherwise. We could enhance direct participation through a culture of frequent referendums, both at the national and local levels. I believe this is the case in Switzerland, for example. But you will need people who are able to manage state affairs on a daily basis without having to consult the population every time they are faced with a decision. Also, I think all current democracies are established around a constitutional code, which is supposed to be a stable minimal set of rules which must be observed at every legal, judicial and executive instance, and which should theoretically limit what elected representatives may or may not do. Sometimes there are problems with this, but in principle you could say that you elect people to rule over you according to the constitution. My point is that simple things like a referendum culture or a serious upholding of the constitution could, in principle, result in a better functioning system.

Another thing to consider is the distribution of forces in the parliament. In the USA, I believe there are only two parties with representation in both houses. In Portugal, for example, we now have 7 parties with parliamentary representation (one of those has elected for the first time a single deputy in the last elections). In a country like the Netherlands, for example, there are 12 and 13 parties in the senate and the house of representatives, respectively. I think this variety of political forces is important in order to maintain a power balance and to bring to the table many different interests and points of view which have to be harmonized in some sense in order for the government to function. In a bipartisan system, you can only get a simple polarization of positions regarding several issues. If there are more political forces, not only can you get a much richer spectrum of opinions and points of view, but you can also more easily find a party with which (never completely, but still to some extent) you can find a reasonable common ground.

In summary, bipartisanship sucks a lot. Voting for any of the two options is all too often a horrible choice. In a more diverse political ecosystem, you are more likely to find something or someone worth supporting. Even if they stay a minority force in the parliament, a good bunch of minority forces may provide a good check on the powers that be and overall increase the political health of the system. This is my position right now given the circumstances of the place where I live. If those happen to change, I will have to reassess this and try to find a better use to give to my vote.