From a certain perspective, having two parties is a fantastic idea. First of all, China has only one so China is a dictatorship. Add one more party and voila - democracy has been born.
Add one or more to the equation, and you get the ugly mess found in Europe, where the governments and parliament are so torn by infights that their politicians can't even find an agreement on when to go to have lunch, much less to decide which direction they should lead their respective states.
The rich and powerful people who control the USA from behind (they do not exist, of course, just a speculation) would never allow such chaos since it would make bribery more difficult to do right.
Two parties mean one needs to make decent lobbying with a limited number of politicians while having too many parties bring unnecessary complexity to the process.
As for the differences between them, the main agenda of the US parties is to keep their country properly divided, never allowing the US citizens to get united under the flag of the shared interest.
The US parties do a proper job in keeping the society split vertically because the moment the poor (hypothetically controlled majority) begin to fight the rich (hypothetically controlling minority), the system will collapse or evolve into something friendlier to 90 percent of the US citizens while harming the benefits of the remaining happy few.
To give an example of how it works:
- The MeeToo movement divides men and women.
- The BlackLivesMatter movement puts different races against each other.
And so on.
The pattern is quite obvious and easily recognizable. The US political system is based on the artificial controversy that creates a distracting, endless show for the masses.
The trend is so hard to ignore that even Hollywood made “Dont look up” movie that parodies the great scheme of things. Not that Hollywood itself has no role in that division, mentioned above.