I would certainly agree that if you think either party has your interests as much as the next (big) election and maybe some forward thinking types within it the one after it as well, maybe with a bit of a taste for power on the side, then you are naive beyond what is reasonable to be, possibly more naive to the real world than the career politicians and business wonks that make up the main choices for them*.
But it is a two party system, mathematically reinforced (first past the post will always trend to two parties) and probably psychologically so as well, so what are you going to do? Vote for a third party at best is meaningless and at worst spoils the ones you might tolerate more (see many things where libertarians get enough percent to skew it the other way entirely which is fine in some ways).
Good luck getting a reformed system of voting in play without a seismic shift (civil war type deal). Reform from within rams into the psychological thing and probably mathematical as well, to say nothing of it not going the way you care for (in US terms the democrat reformation movement seems to hinge mostly on the democratic socialist/social democrat which contains more than a few wack a loons where 90s, possibly also in their 90s, corporate democrats you might at least be able to play along with), and the republicans are losing evangelicals of the 90s and going for the MAGA side of things which others, or perhaps the undecided centrists, might find equally unpalatable).
*career politicos and business wonks along with lawyers that might as well be a mix of the two are the main ones to have the tools, time and drive to deal with politics at high level. Your average autist scientist or salt of the earth type that worked up to management and believes the "serving the people" line is going to lose hard when encountering those that play office politics at high level even if they might actually do a decent job if put somewhere that aligns with interest (and somehow it was a vacuum rather than somewhere where it is almost a zero sum game for funding or allowances -- balance the hippies against the need for an oil pipeline and the oil pipeline built by a guy that runs drainage for a farm company can probably have it on time, under budget and exceeding standards, but the hippy lobby throws a snake in the grass, or maybe just a honeytrap, and all bets are off).
The two "good" outcomes then being enough people sit out that those that might not be a part of the turnout can make things extra spicy (I do like a bit of chaos) if the right candidate squeaks in onto the ballot. Both US parties suffer this somewhat at times (primarying and all the fun there for example) but not to any serious degree (see incumbency rates, possibly contrast to approval and approval within party). There is also a lesser version where something acts as a protest vote so to appease those that will choose to spoil in an otherwise close race they throw a bone one way or another -- the UK leaving the EU referendum was said to be this, though executed by either the malicious or the incompetent.
Things get a lot more local. Unlikely to be anything real while the federal government and supreme court holds the powers they do, and purse strings as well (every city built in the post war US suburban style is pretty much bankruptcy waiting to happen and only the federal government has the juice to do anything there). The immediate lurches that would likely come as a part of that would also be quite the sight to behold if nothing else. That said much has been made of local elections for school boards, attorney generals, state senators, governors, police chiefs, bit of lawfare and whatever else and goes for "both sides".
