No it won't.  Democracy must be protected from anti democratic action. Like a person running on the platform of ending future elections shouldn't be run. You can't let a monarchist run either or a fascist. It's not about fit to run, it's about those that seek to overturn democracy. If you don't,  your democracy won't survive. Just look at how orban did it, hoe bolsonaro wants to do it, how erdogan did it and how modhi is doing it. You are dooming your democracies if you let it happen. And that's what's happening in the US.  Anti democratic people are running and destroying US democracy.

It's the same thing as allowing intolerant people for tolerances sake. You think being tolerant of nazi ideology will end well? Systems can't survive absolutism and as many have said "tolerance requires us to be intolerant towards intolerance". As many Americans have learned, many systems require the goodwill of people in power to do their job. Systems cannot be removed from the people in them. Democracy won't function if Anti democratic forces are allowed to destroy it from within.  You can't have freedom without restricting some freedoms from some people. 

What needs to change - well everything. The two-party system needs to change. Every adult citizen needs to be a voter by definition, without being registered as one. You need to prove your identity when voting.

The funny thing is, that European countries seem to be sliding towards the US system, and not the other way around, as parties are forming "blocs" in different parts of Europe.

No one in Canada disputes the results of elections because the voting standards are strict. This encourages confidence in our democracy.

ID is required (and proof of address, I couldn't vote even with ID in the last election, I had to do a lot of paperwork to vote at all). There are no ballot drop boxes like in the US. Advanced registration with ID is required for mail in voting, and ballots have to be RECEIVED not post marked, a week before the election happens (so up to 2 weeks earlier than in the US).

The US could adopt those features from Canada that are supported by all the left-wing governments here. But unfortunately, the US has crazy Democrats who don't want a reliable electoral system. They call people racist if they want a trustworthy system like all the other modern countries. It is non-sensical, would you call the Liberals in Canada racist because the voting standard is strict?

They said Trump was illegitimate and they are saying the future 2024 election will be the same, even though it hasn't happened yet. Then they are surprised the right thinks the same calling Biden illegitimate (how did he get more votes than Obama?). We need both parties to stop that. The only way forward is a system that everyone trusts.

There is no desire among the left in the US to improve democracy. They don't want to talk about it with their fellow left-wing Europeans and Canadians. They have their practiced attack lines and don't want to give up the demagoguery that works.

Yes, it is. Democracy is letting people vote, there shouldn't be any restrictions on who they can vote for. Also, you never addressed the issue of who exactly gets to determine who's eligible or not. Plenty of incredibly authoritarian countries hold elections where there are no eligible opponents because they won't allow them to run for election, that's definitely not democratic.

Having two blocs seems to be a natural result of majoritarian (or plural) power being the goal.  Whoever can form a majority or plurality gets to make decisions with the minority left out or limited in most countries and instances.

The difference between the U.S and most European countries seems to be at which point the blocs are formed and into which sort of  frameworks. For the U.S there are templates called "parties" but really they should be thought of as interest-based coalitions, where various different interest groups (called factions) bind together in an attempt to accumulate power before elections. These interest-groups can be quite ideologically diverse. Because of the "separation of powers" and the multiplicity of elections there is nothing like a clear majoritarian mandate that you find in many European countries, especially when compared to those with unicameral, unitary legislatures and no separation of the executive and legislative. So power is often shared in the U.S between blocs. 

In most European countries the coalitions/blocs are formed after the elections, and for those countries where legislative and executive power isn't diffused/separated but rather concentrated/consolidated (unitary, unicameral) something like a clear majority mandate can be determined more easily. 

The Swiss system is probably what an idealized U.S system would be, because it took a lot from the U.S system and improved it. Rather than a president there is a continuous directorate that the parties share. This is something that is more small "r" republican in essence, and early U.S states like Pennsylvania used to have a similar executive system. Rather than a two party system based on plurality voting there is a four-party system based on ranked-choice voting more or less. There is substantial direct democracy, an aspect present in the U.S but to a much more moderate degree and only at the state and local levels. Cantonal autonomy over reserved powers is more cleanly preserved than state autonomy over reserved powers is in the U.S. taxes for example are more evenly shared between cantons and the central Swiss government than taxes are in the U.S. Meaning that a lot that is supposedly state powers in the U.S depends on federal funding, and therefore making it difficult to determine which entity has the mandate and should be judged.

The U.S system (in theory) can become as democratic as the Swiss system (which is probably the most literally democratic system in the world.)  

But of course that would require a very tumultuous transition period where there is a high degree of instability, and if there is anything the U.S system is good at being it is stable. Even with the recent fascist threats its surprisingly been able to somewhat defend itself. 

We'll see what happens as capitalism continues to produce more crises. Especially the ongoing climate crisis, but probably other crises to come.

I'm going to refer you to a few rich famous people who were extremely well liked, until they were not, more recently. Worth 1000 words.

This is why first past the post sucks and ranked choice needs to applied. That and proportional voting. One cool idea was actually sharing seats of districts based on minimum voting threshold and proportion of votes gotten. Though that becomes complicated. It'd be like a mini council for every seat to deliberate and decide on issues. So if one gets 40% and two other get 30% each of a seat, the three together decide how they will vote for each measure in the assembly. It is a fair bit competitive but way more representative. Ranked choice is a must though. 

The issue is how do you reform a system where those who control said system greatly benefit from it?

It used to be the case that many U.S states did have multi-membered districts in the form of block voting.

This was banned because it was used to discriminate against black voters in the south.

Before the Jacksonian period, many states also had non-plurality multi-membered districts, but FPTP was consolidated and the two-party system created during the late 1820's and early 1830's. 

Personally I think we should go more radical than representative government. Liquid democracy should be the norm in developed countries, with federalism used to apply it to different scopes of interest. This is how the CNT-FAI managed the political-economy of Catalonia and parts of Aragon during the Spanish revolution.