Right, but amending the constitution is constitutional reform. I think we agree with each other, we just haven't discussed the specifics. I don't know, if a small, culturally and racially homogenous country like Sweden can benefit from having various parties, then considering the USA's cultural, ethnic, religious, socio-economic diversity it would seem it really needs and would benefit by having multiple parties. Just some thoughts, I liked your post it was definitely thought provoking :) (i.e. beating back moneyed interest with stricter campaign finance laws, waiting for another SCOTUS judgement to reverse the last couple bad ones, even amending the constitution to specify the limits of free speech vis a vis political spending).
Our two party system isn't perfect, but in a nation as big and diverse as ours, there aren't really many workable alternatives.
I mean, there's constitutonal reform and then there's constitutional reform. There's plenty of precedent when it comes to amending a particular portion of a particular article of the constitution. There's much less precedent when it comes to foundationally re-structuring an entire branch of government. Only example of that that comes to mind is the move from indirect to direct election of senators, and that's kind of small potatoes compared to this. I agree that the two party system leaves various pluralities woefully under-represented. I'm just not convinced that the proposed solution fixes more issues than it introduces.