::::::I can understand your frustration; please believe me that Wikipedia is not the red-tape nightmare you imagine it to be.  As far as reverting repeatedly, I don't know whether you'll believe me, but I assure you, it's an ineffective strategy.  If you actually are willing to keep revert warring, then you'll eventually be blocked and unable to edit, no matter who's "right". 
 ::::::A hugely important rule of thumb working here is this - being right can't ever justify revert-warring.  You absolutely can win by being right, but you have to be willing to back up your rightness with patience and with a diplomatic approach.  I know it's counter-intuitive, but in the long run, you'll have better luck leaving an article in the wrong version while you enlarge the scope of the discussion, and bring more eyes to the problem.  There are simple strategies for getting around stubborn editors, whether they're admins or vandals or whoever; but you just have to be willing to use those strategies. 
 ::::::The best advice I can give you is to stop reverting, even if the other editor reverts, but be patient, for just a few days, and do everything right on the talk page.  Set up a discussion that clearly asks the right questions, register your input, solicit wider input at RfC or at an appropriate WikiProject if you wish, and then when a number of people have articulated the right reasons for doing the right thing, you can do it with much less chance of being reverted, and confident that passersby will support your action, based on a talk-page demonstration of consensus. 
 ::::::Think about it - if an admin comes along and sees you setting up focused discussions even when the article is not in your preferred version, they'll see you as the clear good-faith editor.  If they see you revert warring, they don't necessarily see who's right and who's wrong; they see edit warring as wrong, period.  Don't knock your head against that reality, and you'll be happier here.  All it takes is being a little bit patient and unfailingly polite about it all.  It works; I promise. 
 ::::::You say that people ignoring policy will have as much voice in a discussion as those following policy, but that's not correct.  Discussions here aren't decided on weight of numbers, but on the arguments; furthermore, if people in a discussion aren't making sense or are ignoring policy, then you can always bring in more people, and you'll be entirely right to do so, as long as you solicit opinions neutrally and in the appropriate venue(s). -