You end up with more money in your hands if we change our voting system.
If you make $1,000 per month today, changing the crummy voting system in the USA ends up making you $1,500 per month. That is half as much more than what you have today.
It is the simple conclusion of comparing voting systems and distribution of incomes among nations in the world.
Naturally, the largest benefit would go to those that make the least amount of money today. The poor would end up being less poor. Which is to say that those more inclined to rob a bank because they need the money will be less inclined to rob a bank, or mug a person on the streets.
Fewer people will go to jail because they have more income every month, and money will be distributed a tad more evenly in society. The rich would still be the rich, but — ever so slightly — they would be less filthy rich.
Let’s get a view on the five different voting systems and their effects on making people dirt poor. We’re not delving in deep, just discussing the most important outcome of this graph.
This result about the poor in all nations in the world is based on research I did in 2006. I used nationmaster.com for the financial data per each nation, and I used the CIA World Factbook to discover what voting system each nation used back then.
The first thing to state is that this information is statistically significant.
That means in plain English that the differences in voting system do indeed have an impact on the distribution of income (or consumption) in a nation. It declares that the information the way it is set apart does tell a real story.
Note, too, that this is not a graph about wealth distribution. It is about the daily economic ins and outs, and how much income or consumption an individual gets from that economy.
Notice the United States in column #1. It sits in a spot where the poor get less than 2 percent of the US economic output, and is found in the column that contains all nations that vote in districts. Here’s the same graph once more:
The most interesting columns to compare the USA to are column #4 (mixed voting systems) and column #5 (proportional voting without an empowered president). None of these nations have outcomes for the poor that are found below the 2 percent line.
If the United States were to get a proportional voting system in place today, it would not automatically push the poor up to the top of column #4 or column #5, but it would push the poor up higher than where we are today.
Let’s make that a move from 1.8 percent to 2.7 percent, which appears a well-supported result. That increase to 2.7 percent may still not sound all that much (the rich section in the USA receives today about 30 percent of the economic output), yet that 2.7 percent is nevertheless half as much more than 1.8 percent.
So, if you get $1,000 per month today, you will indeed end up with $1,500 per month if the United States incorporated either a proportional voting system or a smart mixture of both voting systems.
—
Yes, we should already have a proportional voting system in place for State and local elections per the US Constitution. Ask me why that is the case.
—
The poor in the United States are worse off than the poor in nations with a better voting system. Obviously, if you can get represented by a poor person then this poor person will speak up rather well for other poor people. We do not have that kind of representation today. Basically, the rich represent the poor people in the United States today.
We all know how that influences the outcome.
