The French say it best: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

France and the US have three national political entities people vote for: Presidency, Senate, House of Representatives.

Norway has one House. That's it. No President, no Senate.

Voting proportionally and having one house is the most empowering system in the world for a voter.

Voting three times and then having three institutions bicker with one another is probably the weaker of all systems in the eyes of the voters.

The more we vote, the less empowered we are.

US Senate and House must agree or nothing gets done. In Italy, both Houses can make a government drop. Any time a system is not streamlined in favor of the voter, someone else wins on the receiving end of our governments not getting things done per the voters' wishes. Think big business, for instance. They often benefit when government is not all that fast.

Having a non-empowered king or queen (or president, such as they have in Germany) benefits the voters because the single top position is occupied, not part of the decision-making process.

A single top position is always winner-take-all, and winner-take-all is not good for voter empowerment. Winner-take-all means loser-get-nothing so it is a system of domination and not a system of representation. It can sometimes also lead to civil war when two candidates are running neck-and-neck.

You are on the right track, William. It is not the monarchy; it is the top position not being taken in by an empowered person that makes a democracy so much better.

In the Americas, Canada and Jamaica did best when I looked up their data fifteen years ago about wealth and income distribution. They have the queen in top position, so no winner-take-all in top. All other American nations have a president, a winner-taking-all. And the elite likes it that way, a single leader in top that can sway things in favor of them, or that can prevent things hurting them.

CIA Worldfact Book and gini index are my go-to sources.

Good article, William.