Parliamentary systems allow third parties to grow in prominence, but even in most parliamentary systems two parties end up dominating. My SO has advocated for years that we should do away with political parties entirely, but my instinct was human nature wouldn't allow that for long. I did some research and while direct democracies like ancient Athens was able to function with no political parties, every representative democracy in history has had them.
In parliamentary systems like the UK, most of the time the House of Commons is dominated by two parties. Which two parties changes a bit over time, but it's usually two parties. Currently the Tories dominate (365 seats) with Labour as the minority party (202 seats). The third largest party in the chamber is the Scottish National Party with 47 seats. The SNP is, as its name implies, only from one of the countries making up the UK. They currently dominate the ridings from Scotland in the UK parliament.
There has been a lot of criticism of first past the post election systems like we have in the US, and some of the other ideas out there might work. They are being experimented with in other countries now. I also believe we shouldn't have a system that effectively locks out third parties from growing into larger parties. In parliamentary systems there is more room for a third party to grow into a large party if they have a message that is right for the population and the time.
For a representative democracy to be healthy, the two dominant parties need to pretty much line up left of center and right of center. What makes up "center" varies from one country to another. One of the biggest factors that has pulled the US to the right from early on is the Deep South.
Most Americans in the northern US look across the border and find kinship in the English Canadian cultures across the border. But Canadians look south and see an alien landscape. From American Nations and American Character, English speaking Canada and the northern parts of the US have the same mix of cultures (nations is the term used in the book). But Appalachia and the Deep South are cultures unique to the United States.
American political history is a push pull between the coalition centered in New England (the Yankees) and a Southern coalition centered in the Deep South. Until the civil rights movement the Deep Southern whites were heavily Democrats, but FDR weakened their bonds and the civil rights movement completely broke them loose. It took another 20 years for the Republicans to capture them, but when they did, the Republicans had a winning coalition.
With the realignment of 1980, the Democrats took a while to find their bearings. In the early years political scientists didn't realize the shift had happened. When I was in high school in the 1980s we had an excellent history/poli sci teacher who taught us civics. I remember him saying that the Democratic ticket will always need a Southerner on it to win the White House, and the next time a Democrat did win the presidency it was a Southerner (Bill Clinton) and an Appalachian (Al Gore). But by 2008 the Democrats had shifted away from the South winning with Obama/Biden, neither from the South.
There was no Democrat running who wasn't vulnerable to something in an attack ad, but any line of attack Biden just highlights that Trump is worse at the same accusation. Using Biden word flubs against him will unleash a torrent of worse flubs by Trump. Accusing Biden of sexual misconduct will put Trump's misconduct in the spotlight. The organizations that are lined up against Trump probably have the commercials sitting in the can waiting for Trump to attack Biden.
This article about the sexual misconduct allegations points out that Biden has one accuser of assault (though many more of just being too touchy feely), and Trump has 25.
What’s behind the Biden sexual harassment allegation
Any kind of sexual misconduct allegation is difficult to sort. Men, especially men in power, have a long history of taking advantage of women around them. However, it's not universal. For every Harvey Weinstein there are many more men who respect boundaries and would never do anything to harm a woman.
Men can and do acts of sexual misconduct. It's a real thing. But not every accusation is real. Women can and do make up allegations for revenge or, in some cases notoriety. My SO does domestic violence perpetrator counseling. Usually it's court ordered as diversion from jail. She also has started doing evaluations for court. She is a human lie detector and knows when she's being given a line of BS.
She encounters the occasional psychopath who is not amenable to treatment, and occasionally runs into the guy who thinks his behavior is justified (almost all are an immigrant from a more male dominated society, a member of a very conservative religious group that preaches the male as head of household line, and/or older than 60). The bulk of guys did so something to land themselves in hot water, but it's more driven by a lack of conflict resolution skills and often combined with some form of PTSD. But she also has run into guys who ended up in the system because they married a psycho who thought it would be a good idea to get revenge after an argument by calling 911 and claiming they were assaulted.
When there is a pattern of complaints like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and even Donald Trump, there is probably some fire generating that smoke. People with that mindset have a pattern to their behavior and many accusers over many years. It would be absolutely fantastic to catch someone like this the first time, but innocent until proven guilty. And this is a crime that is very hard to prove much of the time. How do we catch the true predators without scooping up even more innocent men who crossed paths with a crazy woman? It's an impossible problem to solve.
There have been many women who have said over the years that Biden touched them when they didn't want to be touched, but Tara Reade is the only one who has come forward saying he did anything more than something like an unwanted hug. It may have happened, but Occam's Razor leans against it because it's so out of pattern for his behavior. I would believe a story that Tara Reade felt uncomfortable because Biden was too huggy or something similar when she dropped off the gym bag. That fits with all the other stories.
Trump is a different story. We have the hot mike episode where he's bragging about assaulting women and we have 25 women so far who have come forward with stories about his sexual assaults on them. If there was just one or two stories about Trump, I would also be leaning against believing the accusations, but with so many coming forward, it could be some kind of conspiracy to make up allegations, but it's unlikely. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the tougher it is to keep it secret.
The two biggest allegations against Biden: his possible dementia and his inappropriate boundaries, are drastically muted by his opponent who is far, far worse in both areas.
