To be clear, I am certainly biased to one party, but do not like the options either side presents.

My estimation is that, if things are going to change, short of a nationally-recognized catastrophe (something in voting that causes both major party’s voters to nearly unanimously agree that immediate and unequivocal change is required), they’re going to change slowly and incrementally.

With as many people as there are who vote, and of them those who’ve made their party an integral part of their identity, the largest portion are only going to vote in whichever candidate appeals to them most. Alienated voters are perhaps worse than disenfranchised and apathetic voters.

“Preach change, but don’t preach quick change.” Yes, you’re probably correct in that regulatory changes are needed to effect a better outcome, but getting to the aforementioned disenfranchised and apathetic voters is also crucial (and may rely on those regulatory changes). Voting at the local and state level is as important as the national level, so mobilizing all eligible voters to do that is critical. An outstanding regulation in my opinion would be to completely (or as close to completely as effective) remove the financial incentive to abuse government (especially at the congressional level) positions, but in the late-stage capitalist dystopia we’re in, I don’t see anything that radical happening within my lifetime.

As an aside, deradicalizing the political climate would likely do wonders, as well.

Failing these, it may require the worst outcome of all: the forcible and protracted removal of the ability to vote whatsoever. “When you had it, you didn’t use it, and now that you can’t use it, maybe you’ll do something about it.”