I'm not exactly sure what's going to happen in the future, but I'm sure that it's going to be wildly different from the current status quo in a number of countries.
This is how the two party system evolved to sustain the status quo. When people are mad about something, divide the people into two parties and have them each demand a different solution while demonizing the solution of the other party, so that their votes cancel out and then nothing changes.
Extra points if you can get them to demand something unnecessarily polarizing, disproportionate or simplistic when there are better solutions available, because then you can get them to fight against the moderates too.
Notice also that when you point this out to a partisan, they have a tendency to violently agree and then immediately mischaracterize the problem as being that the other party is bad and wrong and the solution is to have everybody do their party's thing.
Both sides are victims, fueled by endless excuses and reasons why the others are responsible. Dems and repubs both do it in various ways and because its mostly "vibes and energies" nobody is really wrong.
We're a vibes and hype culture that refuses to hold itself accountable. It isn't about fixing anything, its become about telling people they're not responsible. Its nobodies fault except the others, they did it.
The American Revolution wasn't radical change from the British system, but thoughtful improvements on it. The French Revolution, and the Communist revolutions were all disasters. The slave revolt in Haiti has produced long-term poor results compared to the Dominican Republic. The American occupation of Japan is arguable, but given that they kept the emperor and one party was in power for the next 50+ years just like before, I have some doubts.
Power rarely voluntarily relinquishes power.
> I can't think of an instance where it worked well.
Worked pretty well for most of the ex Warsaw pact.
> The French Revolution, and the Communist revolutions were all disasters.
What came prior was also a disaster, except it was a disaster for regular people and the unelected Monarchs didn't feel the pain.
What exactly were people supposed to do? Wait patiently for their autocratic rulers to stop acting like autocrats?
> The slave revolt in Haiti has produced long-term poor results compared to the Dominican Republic.
This shows a complete ignorance of historical fact. French Haiti was 90% enslaved, Spanish Santo Domingo was majority free people. It simply isn't a comparable situation.
Again, what were Haitians supposed to do? Sit around being beaten, raped, and worked to death hoping that the slaveowners eventually see the error of their ways?