I have no problems with your quibbles, Comrade Morlock, though I want to express the details a little more.

An apple and an orange are both fruit, but not the same fruit. We agree.

I believe the rich come from the fascist element in the US and UK versions of democracy. It is the system that gives the rich more, not the other way around.

In the UK and the US, we have winner-take-all, which means a political elite is in full control (albeit with two different legs).

0.6 x 0.6 = 0.36

With voting in districts, only the majority of the voters is represented. That is one Majority Rule, say 60 percent got their pick.

Then, these winners make a majority decision. That is two Majority Rule, say 60 percent won the vote.

That means that 36 percent of the voters support the decision.

And that means that the elite controls the game more than in nations with Proportional Voting.

When there are 9 seats on a city council, then 90% of the voters are guaranteed that their choice is expressed on the council in nations with Proportional Voting.

In winner-take-all that is just 50% plus one vote.

So, a majority decision on the board is then 0.9 x 0.6 = 0.54.

The system dictates, and we cannot point to an individual, other than the individuals who put that system in place (and are long dead).

The rich in the UK and the US are particularly rich because the voting system gives them a political heads-up that they can't get in other countries.

The poor end up holding the bag.

In the US, the bottom ten percent gets 1.7% of the national cake. In Denmark, that is 3.7%. Denmark has a fair voting system.