I think FPTP was a good solution back in the day when there were less people, much slower communications and less technology. Constitutional representation for areas was a valuable part as the make up of the country was very different. But in today's world of globalisation, fast comms and technology with people being more specific as to their views, it's showing itself as outdated.
I'm very puzzled at this. Exactly how does the existence of "globalisation, fast comms and technology" affect the desirability of elected MPs to be accountable to their electorates? PR removes accountability, pure and simple.
How can the SNP get 1.45m votes (4.7%) that transforms into 56 seats (8.6% of parliament) whereas UKIP get 3.87m (12.6%) votes, which is over 2.66 times more, yet just get 1 solitary seat (0.15% of parliament)? This is undemocratic surely.
I'm in complete agreement there. See:
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=172856 (but you do need an attention span).
Another positive aspect is that the parties could put their best representatives into parliament as opposed to the ones that happen to be in safe seats.
No! If I elect someone to represent me in the Commons, I don't want some Dominic Grieve-alike shaven-head phukwit deciding someone else is going to do it! Why? Because the bloke I elected can then say 'not me guv', and is not accountable because party machinery got in the way. Granted, there are already a number of ways for this to happen, but let's not enshrine it in the constitution. Bollocks to that -- if I elected someone who doesn't bullsh1t, I don't want him censored for marketing reasons.