I never said anything about the middle. I was specific to the GOP/Trump supporters.

But there are moderate republicans that have voted red for so long they cant vote blue because of habit and endless rhetoric. While they are facist sympathizers in that they vote red with their ehad in the sand, wether they know it or not, what do you gain by calling them that? Nothing really, its just inflammatory, and it will drive them farther towards the facist ideology as it will be the only place that will accept them.

Dealing with this requires criticism, and forcing them to see the error of their ways whether they like it or not.

Hard disagree. You should look into how to change peoples minds, because if you start by calling them a facist sympathizer its over. This is the biggest reason I'm against this kind of speech, while true, that person wont identify as such, but they will recognize the attack on them, put up their guard, and then its done. If you want to convince people of stuff, you have to find middle ground with them first and then broach topics from your point of view without speaking in antagonizing labels, or find a way to show how you both actually want the same thing, its a slow process, but it requires finding common ground to approach the topics you really want to convince them on from.

The germans didn’t change their minds until they were forcibly marched to the camps to see the death and destruction they wrought upon the jews and other prisoners.

This just shows how people need proof to accept things sometimes, the conversation is about changing minds and reducing polarization though, so I don't know what point you're trying to make with this. If its that they need to be called facists to learn, you are mistaken. Personal attacks never lead to a change of mind. You are better off showing (note: not calling, but showing) how the republican party are facists, than by calling the voters facists. In fact even using the word facist wont help, you may have better progress by getting them to agree the constitution is a marvelous document we should protect, they will agree, this is common ground, then you say something like "its a real shame it doesn't hold the supreme court accountable for bribes though" or maybe "its a real shame that they are trying to give the executive branch unchecked power" as this is definitely not what the framers ever had in mind, its the exact opposite,. But this is how you argue stuff to affect change.

If we are going to put effort into fixing this problem we should fix it right, we shouldn’t take half measures.

Great is the enemy of good, anything that gets rid of the 2 party system while allowing multiple parties can and should be supported whole heartedly. You cant get hung up on finding the best solution when the solution presented helps us not steer off of the cliff. But yes, we should fight for the best system, but rally behind whichever one is chosen in the end, much like every election, you wish the candidate was inline with your views, but you'll swallow and vote for what is available anyways.

So does McDonald’s but that doesn’t mean it is a good choice.

It is better than our current system, this is good enough for me, and it should be for you, but again, any system that allows for multiple parties is a good choice.