Stephen, I admire your zeal. But you make quick assumptions. Here above is an article about data I put together in 2006. I agree that scholars can do a better job, but the big picture is already visible in the graphics: political systems differ in their outcomes.
The biggest shock I had, seeing the information come to live before my eyes, was that proportional voting has two distinct versions. The version without an empowered president did best of all systems. The version with an empowered president did (potentially) worst of all. Our system, district elections is potentially bad as well.
A president is of course a winner-taking-all, and never a proportional representative. That explains the difference between the two forms of proportional voting. Our winner-take-all system picks winners; losers are not represented. We only have red and blue. We do not have other colors.
This is like basketball. The red and blue team can be made up by anyone we pick. But the more exciting the game (and the more money involved), the sooner the players start to be tall players. Six feet is barely possible and the exceptional guy is tremendously good at the game. When 5 feet tall? Forget about it.
That’s our political system. The tall people make the decisions. In general, they’ll make decisions that benefit the average person. Every now and then they make decisions that benefit tall people. They will never make decisions that will benefit short people, though they may have a program in place for the worst of times. Society is organized for the average and the tall. That’s the outcome.
In our world, we have two forms of democracy. The other form is already delivering to all, but is competing with our winner-takes-all because that’s what our system is built on: competition that demands losers getting nothing. They cut up the entire pie based on all votes. People are happier there.
Yes, let’s all get educated about what structures are all in place. They command our lives.
