Under some circumstance, you'd be right. I just don't think it applies in this one, which is why I emphasize how rules are made.
You and three kids form a club. You build the coolest clubhouse: it has kegs and pole dancers! Every kid wants to join. You start letting them in. But in doing so, you make a set of rules for the club, the first being the rule that only you and your first three friends make the rules and that the cool clubhouse is your exclusive property.
You think a hundred new members is going to take your clubhouse away from you?
Who you invited in, you can always disinvite out. Because you make the rules!
Parties are quite literally private clubs. And you weren't one of the first three kids...
So again, to beat this analogy to a bloody death, if you were one of the new members who decided you wanted to ditch the pole dancers for, say, PS4s, which would be easier? Build your own clubhouse and make your own rules? Or stick around and hope the current club owners have a change of heart?
I like using the childhood analogy here because I think, when we were all kids, we understood this dynamic so much better than after a few years of adulthood convincing us of our powerlessness.
American politics is a merciless structure. It was never designed to facilitate change. On the contrary, it was explicitly designed to prevent it except under only the most dire circumstances where a large consensus emerged.
To operate in such a stultifying system, you have little choice but to form your own club and put in the work of building it up to the size where it can dethrone one of the current clubs. It's the only way this can be done.
And I'm not saying this is easy. It's not. It is, by design, likely to fail as it almost always has. But unless you're ready to head for the hills with the contents of Bubba Joe's God 'n Guns! (TM), it's the only real choice you have.