The Convention of States is a campaign by the Tea Party movement to form an Article V convention, but they are more likely to present a balanced budget amendment, not electoral reform. Key people involved like Jim DeMint have also advocated for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—a pretty silly idea if you ask me.
So now there is a quasi-aristocracy running plays and putting on these electoral shows every couple of years.
Calls for substantial reform.
Technical people understand the need for clean architecture and political systems.
Humans are not code, but our political- and tax systems are a Byzantine train wreck. On a good day.
But go ahead and worry about DeMint's opinions, boss.
I submit that perhaps the communication challenge may be rooted in the modern insistence in making ansolutely everything political.
A Federalist construct would seek to assign appropriate tasking to each level of government, and have DC manage international and inter-State concerns.
Arguably, a single, monolithic state try to manage every personal and local concern leads to gridlock, Q.E.D.
There are plenty of other parties, for example: Libertarian, Green, and Constitution.
In practice, these minor parties (could be) funded by the opposite end of the spectrum to weaken the other side (just a hunch).
But that gets at one possibility of why these minor parties never do better than, say Ross Perot (who got no electoral votes, but sunk Bush41 in 1992): scale.
It takes a whale of a party to carry a pond the size of the US.
And really, the remaining two nominal parties seem wings of a deeper, stateful organization putting on a show every couple of years.
If there is interest in altering the equation, I would suggest https://conventionofstates.com/