We have (many) more than two choices in most general elections (except for seats where state law involves something like California's "jungle primary", but then the primary is, not a "primary" in the usual sense (an election in which party nominees for the general election are chosen) but the first round of a two-round general election, where only the top two candidates from the first round advance to the second round.

What we tend to have is only two viable choices, and that's a consequence of using single-winner election with first-past-the-post voting; using multiwinner elections with a proportional election method (which doesn't have to be party-list proportional, candidate-centered ranked-ballots, multimember district systems like Single Transferrable Vote work fine for this) for legislative elections, and ranked-ballots single-winner elections for executive offices (but the first is more important than the second) can fix that (unfortunately, at the federal level, that takes people heavily invested in the system to vote to end it; which is unlikely to happen unless it becomes a matter of overwhelming public consensus, which it won't without being adopted at some level; however, in many states, it could be done for state elections through citizen processes without politicians voting it in.)

We have three choices in Canada and it's basically the same thing. They pretended we were going to get more options last time but it turned out to be politically untenable for the powers at be.

In the Netherlands there are twenty parties that dit in Parliament

Still disappointment because they need to form a coalition. But that is what countries are: a group of people who despise eachother but have to work together because the alternative is even worse.