I have more, Ray, in case you are interested in sharing with others.
In this first graph that I produced in 2006 with the use of nationsmaster.com and the CIA World Factbook, one can see that different voting systems do end up delivering different outcomes.
The information is statistically significant and that means that the storyline is indeed real, the system does change the outcome (but this may not be the only storyline; culture may be equally important, for instance).
In column #1, the USA is found together with other nations that vote in districts. As you can see, there is quite the spread so nations in this voting block may or may not treat the poor poorly. Yet they can stoop low.
The spot where the data becomes statistically significant is found in columns #4 (mixed voting systems) and #5 (proportional without an empowered president) because these nations simply do not have certain outcomes. None has an outcome as low for their poor as the USA, for instance.
For example, a person now consuming $1,000 per month, or receiving an income of $1,000 a month in the USA, will see an improvement in income when we change systems (changing systems is partially possible already).
In this case, that change is declared as fully possible, so we see the 1.8% now 'handed' to the poor increase to 2.7%. It is unlikely that the USA would end up sitting in top position (‘handing’ 4% or 5% to the poor all of a sudden) any time soon. That ‘ordinary’ change to 2.7% would entail an income or level of consumption for that same person of the example then receiving $1,500 a month. Half as much more than today.
The poor will not get rich when we change systems, but they would not be as horribly poor any longer as they are today, hence a happier nation overall.
The edge in the USA will become a tad less edgy, which will of course not be a negative thing.
In this graph, we see the opposite, how well a nation treats its rich.
Notice that this is all about the economic output and how much the top and the bottom are getting. This is expressed with consumption or via income. So, this is not a graph that shows wealth distribution (which in some cases can be far worse).
Now, we see the USA in column #1, this time with 'handing' the rich some 30% of the economic output of the USA. This is higher than most nations in columns #4 and #5.
Again, the ‘beauty’ of the graph is that it shows what ‘good’ voting systems are not doing compared to what ‘bad’ voting systems are doing.
--
The surprising outcome for me was that column #3 did so poorly. Again, there is a widespread of possible outcomes, but this column definitively includes handing the elite the most and the poor a pathetic amount of nearly nothing.
Proportional is therefore a tricky one. It contains the path toward greater happiness for all, but the single winner (the empowered president) can actually take all the goodies and warp the economic output toward his friends, particularly when the House contains many parties and the president stands strong.
It is therefore better to have proportional all by itself (have a prime minister come forth from the overall elections, not elect that person directly), or have district elections but then fix it up like Germany does.
All in all: The outcome is found through who is or who are given the power and therefore who the people are that will be listened to. When there is a single leader, then the voters can end up being treated like sheep, and the president, governor, or the elected mayor can then end up being the wolf who will eat the other representatives (and the voters supporting them) for breakfast.
Notice how easily the goodies are spoiled when the voting system is not right. Egypt, for instance, picked the ‘South American’ voting system of proportional + empowered president. A big failure, because this is the hardest form of democracy where all must behave just right to get a decent outcome.
--
Let me know how I can help further, Ray.
If we want a better world, then we have to ensure we use smart systems. If we use dumb systems while applying the best words in the world ever, we are still going to end up with a dumb outcome, just wrapped in the most beautiful words.
