I investigated this matter a lot, Benjamin.
In this graph, you can tell how voting systems do have an influence on societal outcomes, statistically significant.
The graphs are 'just' about money, but they show how much of a society is inclusive (social in outcome) and exclusive (selfish in outcome).
The story is told the fastest way when looking at the two kinds of proportional voting systems, in column #3 and column #5. The one with a president has the ability to give the wealthy a greater share of society, while the nations without a president do not show such loose behavior.
A president is winner-take-all, and the more a president is empowered, the greater the chance the elite gets the benefit from their friend.
In this case, the white area above columns #4 and #5 are the parts that talk the loudest.
Winner-take-all is an exclusive voting system; people are excluded, not represented at the table. Then, the more political institutions there are, the less well the political system functions for society as a whole; it functions best for the elite.
In this graph you can see how the bottom section of society is included or excluded. Clearly, the United States does not deliver (1.7% in the data of the graph, 1.8% today). While we are talking small percentages only, Canada sharing 2.7% with the bottom 10% in its society shows us a very important distinction. Denmark sharing 3.8% with its bottom ten percent in society puts that nation in a class above both these two nations.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.10
By not providing all that much to the bottom of society, the competitive force within society increases. Said differently, foreign investors can get more money out of an investment in the USA than in Denmark because Danish society takes more/demands more from the outcome of investments than the USA.
So, the political system that excludes folks to sit at the decision tables is the more competitive nation.
In Denmark, none of the voters loses, so the devastation of not-winning is not experienced in that society. It is informative therefore in light of character building, culture building.
In the USA voters compete with the voters and do so for a multitude of political levels.
In Canada, the voters compete with the voters yet there are different aspects in place that modify the outcome from just two parties around the table to having about five parties around the table. One of them the fact that the House of Commons is the central political body and it is not confused much with other political entities. The Canadian outcome will be smarter for society as a whole; the competitive (undermining) forces in society not as deep. Yet compared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, Canada is not as benevolent to all (Sweden is just a tad more social than Canada in this respect).
The way a society organizes itself, that is how the character of a nation will get built. Not the other way around, Benjamin.
Not every system has its benefits and downsides, other than from a shallow perspective how all have their ups and downs. When digging in deeper, one can see that the voting system truly matters for how a society functions and how character and culture gets built.
