There are many more than that. The problem is that if you appeal you will be looked strange. Bias is the main problem. My paper got rejected 5 months ago. I have sent it to many friends, scholars, senior scholars, have presented it to three schools. I told them the paper got rejected and they couldn't find a fair reason for the rejection. Recently I have sent them the editor's and reviewer's comments and the most common thought was about bias. For instance, one reviewer says the paper is excellent in terms of writing but the other one says the bad writing is the main issue. There would be no positive outcome from the senior editor should I have appealed. Secondly, I think that in case of rejections, the senior editor should send the paper to at least two other people for review. There is no other way to fight bias. If you resubmit you will face the same editor whose bias is still there. How do you deal with it? Many TAR editors should be replaced, especially those who have failed to have enough A papers. They have enough hate toward successful researchers. Its within them. It will be hard to return to TAR if there are no substantial changes.
Lol, what? "If two reviewers think my paper isn't any good, the journal should be required to waste the time of two more reviewers just to be sure". Keep in mind that you don't have access to the private communications between the reviewers and the editor, which can sometimes do a better job of signaling the severity of reviewers' concerns than the review reports. It's unfortunate that there isn't a little better transparency on that front, but it is what it is. One thing that could help would be to impose limits on the number of submissions per year (or two year period or whatever). That would free up more reviewer/editor time for giving papers even more careful attention.
If your time has more value than ours than good luck.