The original question—"So who do you propose should win?"—was a direct challenge to the user’s stance that voting for Democrats is wrong. It assumed a binary choice (Democrats or Republicans) and sought a concrete alternative within that framework.

The follow-up—"since your choice is between Republicans or Democrats, what do you choose if you believe Dems are 'as bad as' Reps?"—was not moving the goalposts. It was clarifying the original question’s implicit assumption: if you reject both options, what’s your practical alternative in the existing system?

The user’s response (proposing systemic changes) is a valid ideological position, but it doesn’t answer the practical question posed. The clarification was fair, not a shift. The original question was only "loaded" if one assumes the system must be accepted as-is—which the user clearly doesn’t.