The democratic world according to LocalParty.Org

The term democracy is generally used for a broad range of electoral formats, but the collective term of democracy used here describes only the specific form of Equal Representation in which voters actually pick the person themselves to represent them. On the map below, all nations shown deliver some level of equal representation. Please note that nations with the pure winner-takes-all system (district elections) do not fall under this specific banner, because almost 40% of the voters do not receive representation (except by the winner); these voters do not live in a nation with equal representation.

The following map of the world shows the three versions of equal representation in the world. The first form in dark green shows the rather limited number of nations that make the voters' choice be the only vote that matters. As you can see, the majority of these nations are found in Europe (but not exclusively).

Sources used to compile this graph are based on 2005 data from: CIA World Factbook, Worldpolicy.org, NationMaster.com , and WPmap. As disclaimer, not all nations may deliver in reality what on paper is their official governmental format.

The second form of equal representation is taken up by nations with proportional elections that additionally have presidential elections also, shown in lighter green. As is obvious, presidential elections are never proportional: they are an addition to a democracy, and that addition is in itself a winner-takes-all election, and should therefore be considered a specific mix of proportional plus district elections. Central-American, South-American and African nations tend to have this form of democracy — if they have proportional representation.

The third level of equal representation is taken in by those nations with a peculiar use of proportionality: People vote for their representatives in districts, but some importance to equal representation is then delivered in the result as well. If a nation votes in districts and the districts have more than one seat per district — or when the end results of all districts are adjusted afterwards to include the overall vote as well — then such nation is shown in blue. Important nations in this category are: Germany, Japan, Australia. Here is the visual once more:

Data sources do vary, so the following graph shows how much of the national distribution of income ór distribution of consumption the top 10% in a nation can call their own. All versions of government are shown, and the three versions of equal representation are the ones to the right. What you should immediately note is the white space above the forms of government to the right.

Please note that the distribution of consumption usually shows a lower level of inequality than the distribution of income. Various aspects on this graph may therefore be further skewed than they already appear. Of great interest is the difference found between the nations with proportional elections — one with and one without a president: they show almost opposite results. Nations with proportional elections without a president all remain below the level as found in the United States, while nations with proportional elections that also elect a president show many above that level. Additional source: NationMaster.com

Did you notice how nations without a president did so much better for all? Please note that many district-elected nations have a president, too, but not all.

The next graph looks at the ten percent of the population that find themselves at the economic bottom side in their nations. The graph shows that the nations are positioned a tiny bit further apart from each other due to a different scale (a single percent marker is used on the left side instead of a ten percent marker, already indicating how the data among the poor are tabulated at such a distinctly different level than among the rich). The trends remain visible nevertheless. Many nations in top and bottom position of the previous graph come back in opposite places in this graph. The bottom ten percent of society in the United States fall below the bottom ten percent of nations of three other categories of systems.

Sometimes important information is not available for most nations, for instance, for the issue of the population living below poverty. The international standard for poverty is expressed as living below half of what is considered the national median income. It is important to note that various nations have their own definition for poverty: the United States basically multiplies the food-needs for a family three times to get its definition, while the nations in the European Union use 60% of the median income as the definition. That way, they end up with similar figures for people living below poverty. The next graph shows, however, that expressing the poverty level in one and the same way puts them further apart.