One cause, it would be worth making some progress on, would be to make single member elections the exception, rather than the rule. They bring the US and the UK into world disrepute, as rowdies who can't agree on anything. As HG Wells said, over a century ago, when the obvious method of a single non-transferable vote is used, it follows there is only an either-or choice, and politics drifts into the hands of two antagonistic parties. (About a quarter century or so later, dubbed Duverger law.) The monarch or elected monarch, the ancient Greek "tyrant," one man can hold the world to ransom. As previously suggested a 5-member executive STV elected from 5 centers of the US republic would have 5 independent sources of popular support, and have been less likely to follow one man (at a time) persisting in the Vietnam war, or one man for a second Iraq war. The least democratic system is "maiorocracy" splintering nations into pieces of the cake small enough for some minority to become a dominating majority. Their ultimate logic is anarchy and chaos. Even the Kazakh leader rebuffed Putin, for that. Genuine proportional representation is needed, following the borders of natural communities, democratically consented. (Not the Versailles treaty model, an imposed Imperial model, rewarding allies, regardless of cultural composition of populations.) Regards, Richard Lung.