And that is fine, WW3Lobby.

When the internet took off in all earnest, back in the late nineties, early 2000s, I decided to have a look at nations, their top rich and bottom poor, see how they stacked up in political systems, and this was the result.

It was a lot of work. Hours, weeks.

If I were to do it again today, I would use a finer comb still.

What I did not do was make a distinction between winner-take-all nations with- and without- an empowered president. I would be interesting now to see if these two showed the same real discrepancy between proportional voting in nations with- and without- an empowered president.

Also, I would start to distinguish better between proportional voting systems and multi-seat proportional voting. It sounds like a real fine comb, but I learned over the years that nations with pure proportional voting have more active political changes occuring (more varieties in coalitions) than nations with multi-seat proportional voting.

Those nations with multi-seat elections tend to favor a centrist party, even to the point they can be in sole control for decades or always in control with varying other parties for decades.

How we vote, or how we are prevented to vote, really makes a big distinction whether a nation is built around power only or whether a nation is built around power and truth.

When I moved from country to country, it was fascinating how some nations have folks in them focusing on the political truth, and how some nations have folks in them thinking along power lines only.