Honestly can't see any way around those things. After perot got such huge numbers, mostly from actually getting some air time on the news shows and in the debates, they stopped that noise. No third party efforts get much comprehensive news coverage. both the dems and repubs have made it almost impossible to get into their "national debates', they created a catch 22, you need at least 15% support, but to get that 15% support you need air time. This is institutionalized smariness, it's disengenuous, and an insult to anyone who can actually think things through just a tad.
This nation is primarily TV viewers, followed by readers. The major networks get their fcc licenses rubber stamped, no matter how many complaints they have received over the years. The "two party system" does not appear in the constitution anywhere's, yet it's such a gimmee in people's minds it's acted on like it's an actual written "law". If you dare to step out of that box you are immediately labeled 'fringe" and either the dems or the repubs who "counted" you in their "ownership" tally tell you you are 'wasting" your vote, and the sheep's media follows this dictum, ie "no coverage" or mostly negative coverage..
Only solution I can see is IF a grassroots petiton and lobbying effort can be mounted to lobby the few remaining pro-US soverignty members in the house and senate, from both parties, to resign their affiliation with either of those parties and to openly join a common-cause third party or coalition effort. THAT would get some press, especially if there was at least a half a dozen or more who did such. I would say to combine the liberty caucus members on the repub side with an analysis on the dem side with regards to the bill of rights issues and voting records, concentrate on those few who pass muster, and see if this could be done, this amnesty -lite bil, gun ownership issues, the various UN distractions and usurpations, etc..
Trying to change all of them all at once is so close to impossible as to be a waste of time, but getting ENOUGH of them -even 6 to 12 say- to change to rock the political establishment MIGHT be doable. The press couldn't ignore it, look at the coverage when even one of them switches parties or goes independent. You might-scratch that, you'd have to even lobby current third party grassroots workers and the smidgen of elected people they have across the nation to join in for the greater good-agree to disagree on this or that issue, and unite behind just serious "change" in the status quo. The various third parties are slap fulla activists who are used to working effectively, but are at odds constantly with the various other parties. I would think a coaliton might actually accomplish more, and faster. These efforts might also entail lawsuits against the major networks in their political coverage, as it's completely do-able to count the minutes and instances of air coverage that a bare handful of elected repubs and dems get, as opposed to the vast bulk who get zip airtime. To me it's prima facie evidence of abuse of the fcc license. A serious hundred billion dollar class action lawsuit might be effective, could be joined in from almost anyone no matter their personal political agendas they support, and they would be hard pressed to deny the claims, as the videotapes exist. It just might scare them straight, as they would actually have to mount a defense of their obvious biases and lack of meaningful news coverage of people outside the top dozen or two that are CONSTANTLY on the various news shows. This bias is NOT serving the public's good, not-in-the-least. We actually DO have federal laws and regulations that concern these extremely lucrative fcc near-monopoly brodacast licenses, and they are mostly ignored. You could even include the fcc as a defendant in the lawsuit, as they have failed to do their jobs in this particular manner over the years.
The biggest thing stopping effective third party efforts is rigid adherence to exact detailed platforms, people find one negative they don't like, so they reject a third party, but fail to take note that even amongst the ardent supporterts of either the dems or the repubs that the same thing happens-there's some "things" they don't agree with-but they vote dem or repub anyway.
The third parties could retain their individual memberships, but unite in a new org as well, a coalition to change 'the system", they can do BOTH, to just break the stranglehold on the political process that the dems and repubs and the broadcast media have.
Coalition efforts are not perfect, as you can see in the parlimentary nations where this occurs, but at least there's more participation from across the board of their respective people's in general, and much less apathy; voting and interest levels are higher in nations with a variety of parties. There's less pressure on individual legislative acts to vote strict party lines. There's none of this nonsense we have in this nation about 'wasting" your vote. In these other nations, your vote is only wasted when it's not cast at all.
The largest untapped voting pool avaialable in the US right now is the one that has stopped voting, 50% of the electorate. That's a lotta votes, more than enough if even a fraction of those votes were cast to completely change election results all over. In numbers comparison, it dwarfs even all the recent immigrants if they were all to vote tomorrow, just by sheer size of numbers and the phenomenon of these numbers being widespread in almost every voting district/precinct across the nation.. A huge number of these non-voters would vote, they have just been so turned off by the "system" that they don't bother, as they have rightly identified 1/2 of the problem. That 1/2, is the important 1/2, is that it really hasn't made much of an over-all difference who controls the legislative or executive branches, because the basic over-all results are so similar that the point is moot. I've just heard this over and over again from people I know who have dropped out of the political process. They care about issues, but see such little practical difference in the choices that they don't bother, that and it might be impossible to lose the money from having to skip work to vote. I've heard that a lot, poll times are skewed for the 'system", not to get out all the vote effectively. this part *might* be possible to shame the entire congress into changing, as who could efferctively mount an intellectual exercise against it, and not suffer immediate condemantion as being a goon?
I will not deny that there are major differences in the two dominant parties, but I also won't deny the similarities are "more" than the differences. Untold millions probably agree with that assessment.
Another is the actual "vote", it needs to be a 24 hour period, and NOT on a work day in midweek. Perhaps even a 48 hour period encompassing the entire weekend to take into account various folks religious beliefs and duties thereof. That's a tough one top conquer, but if it was to change to that, you'd see a much higher voter turnout.
There's more but these are some starts.