Usually those of us who have voted for less government have voted for candidates that haven’t even gotten elected. People instead are voting for-or-against abortion, for-or-against gun control, or whatever other never-been-solved issues and then letting their voted-for representatives run rampant on nearly every other issue. (Never mind the role of the two party system, the anti democratic shenanigans in those parties, and the only real choice being the lesser of two evils.) Those politicians have given us more and more government in the form of regulatory bodies, enforcement bodies under the umbrella of the executive, and bureaucracy. You may or may not like those things but to lay them at the feet of people who want less government is absurd.

I… find it rather difficult to believe that a sufficient number of Americans coordinated and voted strategically over decades in order to intentionally bring to existence the current two-party deadlock situation.

What is a political party if not a means of mass coordination and strategic voting?

American politics has become less about policy and more about ideology and party loyalty over time, and that ideology has become more entrenched and unwilling to compromise with opponents.

Robin Hanson argues [0] that most of politics is not about outcomes; it's about in-group signaling.

[0] http://elephantinthebrain.com/

It's working as designed. The same system that prevents Congress from properly voting on PPP Loans is the same system that prevents Trump from banning all muslims from the country overnight.

I'm not smart enough to know if there is a better solution for America.

A government that doesn’t govern leave a power vacuum that will be filled. In best case by more local governments, but more likely by corporations or mafia style organisations.

It's a myth that a significant number of people want less government. What they really want is a government that does their bidding.