I love the long response, Bob. No worries.
I am glad you mentioned parties because some folks here are so against parties that they can't see what is what very well. Not saying that is true for you.
In Sweden (and Denmark) the parties tend to block up. But not always so. I don't like it when parties block up, combine themselves before the elections. That is a downside of the Swedish/Danish system. Yet they do not always block up.
--
In the Netherlands, there are 18 parties. There is no blocking up, but nowadays (after 1992 when the WTO was put in place, and the EU got established in its modern format) many parties have become anti-government. Obviously, they are not often found inside a coalition government.
Yet with 18 parties, there is an enormous diversity expressed. It is not 2D, but 3D big time.
Christian left, center, and right, and extreme.
Libertarians (part of the coalitions for a decade, pretty good for one party)
Socialists, libertarian socialists, communist-socialists,
Nationalist parties, center and right and further extreme.
Environmentalist parties, Party of the Animals, Green-socialist Party.
Party of the Elderly.
Voters vote for individuals, captured inside a party. They can select within a party list and get someone moved up by voting for that candidate.
There is no knowing in advance which coalition will end up forming the next government until after the elections.
--
Spain is large districts multi-seat proportional. So there are some voting boundaries, but these are very large (think districts the size of east coast states, though not Oregon).
That means Spain has some restrictions in place for the voters, and we see larger parties in coalition governments. Still, it is not 2D.
--
The Swedes can point nearly 100% of all voters to the party they hand-selected themselves. The Dutch are nearly 100% capable of pointing out who represents them, many even pointing toward a person.
--
I read that Astoria has four wards, so the worst level is 50% plus one vote.
With four seats, Thomas Jefferson's voting system has a guarantee of 80%. That is 30% difference that the ones sitting in the seat can ignore at their pleasure.
--
Here is the real point:
The strings between representatives and voters are a lot shorter in the American voting system that they have in Europe. I
n the old-European voting systems that we still have here in the USA, the top segment of the political reality is much farther removed from the voters.
An elite is ensured with the English system that it can (partly) manipulate the outcome.
Divided in voting wards means that part of the political decision making process got conquered beforehand.
And this shows in the result. Look at the following map, in top of this wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
It shows that the USA has the worst distribution of wealth of all rich nations in the world. Look at Europe where England is the worst in Western Europe together with horribly organized (but proportional) Italy.
England and the USA have the English voting system. The other nations in Europe doing well have the American voting system (though there are many differences in al these European nations, too, and excellent way to study how the voting system affects the outcome.
Yes, I have statistically significant data (from 2006) that shows that voting systems do influence this outcome. There can be other things in play, but the voting system statistically significant changes the wealth distribution in a nation.
Put the proportional voting system in place int he USA and the bottom ten percent of people end up getting half as much more on their plate than what they get today. If we were to follow the Scandinavian system, then we can actually double what they get on their plate compared to today.
It's in the system. The English voting system contains a divide-and-conquer element in the voting booth. Thomas Jefferson's American Proportional voting system does not divide-and-conquer in the voting both.
Good reply, Bob. Keep the pressure on. It is good.
