The very worst nations on earth at building inclusive coalitions to quickly and properly solve a global crisis - to judge by their (non) actions during the last global crisis (WWII) and the current global crisis (global warming and species loss) - are our oldest democracies.
With transportation and communication incredibly expensive and awkward a hundred and fifty years ago, only the wealthiest could form fully national political parties - usually there were only two eternal national parties and a few small regional parties quickly popping up and disappearing.
FPTP voting, 'winner take all voting', with slightly less than 50% losing their vote each and every election, was the system they choose.
Might is right voting, law of the jungle voting, voting red in tooth and claw, social darwinism at the ballot box : their voting system not unnaturally fully mirrored their elite's exclusionary social values.
Today the two big old line parties with exclusive access to national power in all of these FPTP countries regular proclaim that their nations are 'inclusive societies'.
True, after years of protests and even civil diso, they have (albeit very reluctantly) extended civil and human rights to even the smallest of minority groups.
The only group they would never ever consider extending civil and human rights to is the 2/3 majority that regularly "loses it vote" after each election !
Instead they regularly elect all-powerful leaders based on 1/3 of the votes from the half of the electorate who turn up to vote : a phony "false majority".
For a move to inclusive voting, with 'a voice in the national legislature for every voter', would mean sharing power with the less powerful in society.
They'd rather lose office to their traditional opponent, with whom they occasionally fiercely fight while more normally espousing the same values, than share some of their power with other 'lessers', to remain in office.
It reminds one of WWII's "false" Allied coalition, with the FPTP superpowers leading it actually making international coalition-binding decisions the same way they always did it nationally after their election wins - by fiat and fist.
Britain, for example, would rather lose to Germany than win under a scheme that saw ten million darky soldiers from all over their empire successfully invade Europe in 1942.
Doesn't that sound just like a FPTP old line party refusing to move to inclusive voting, even it meant it was in most post-election governments, because it also meant sharing power with smaller parties ?