This house believes that proportional representation should replace Plurality systems

I think my opponent's response comes down to a simple statement: "Well what would be the alternative? "In regards to this, I wish to state the alternative: STV. In STV, constituencies become multi-seat constituencies. If I create a scenario:Conservative votes: 30,000Lib Dem : 25,000Labour : 20,000 Other: 500 In Plurality systems, the conservatives would get 1 seat, and therefore have only 40% of the population represented by the party they voted for. In contrast, in STV the conservatives would get 2 seats, labour would get 1 seat, and Lib Dems would get 1 seat. The Iowa Straw Poll The Iowa Straw Poll supports and not criticises the idea of STV. Firstly, let me remind the listeners that in STV, you do not have to vote for 10 candidates if numbered, so if there are candidates you hate equally, you don't have to vote for either of them. STV doesn't take away the right to not vote, it grants you the right to keep voting. Further, if one votes Paul, Gringich, Santorum then Romney, you're actually giving more votes to Romney than if you just didn't vote. My opponent says that what happened is that 3 votes were cast against a single candidate, but in truth what happened is compromise. Let's say that the voting was like this:vote 1: (Mark)vote 2: (Mark)vote 3: (Mark)vote 4: (Paul) vote 5: (Paul) vote 6: (Paul) vote 7: (Paul)vote 8: (Luke)vote 9: (Luke) vote 10: (Dan) vote 11: (Harry)vote 12: (Matt)Paul is an extreme socialist, and Mark is an extremely libertarian conservative. Luke is a centralist. In this form, Paul would be elected, even though he barely achieved a third of the votes. However, let's then suppose that all of the fringe votes (for Matt, Dan and Harry)'s second was Luke. Say he's the 'compromiser' who neither group loathes, but neither group's favourite. If there were 3 seats up for grabs, then Mark would get a seat, Paul would get a seat, and Luke would get a seat, which would mean that no-one's vote is wasted. In plurality system, Paul would get elected, and the other 2/3rd, who are the majority, would not get represented. This shows clearly how STV is more democratic than plurality. In plurality, however, the tactical voting would instead mean that Luke, who is very popular still, does not get represented. My opponent says STV "gives. .. a lot more voting power to people who don't support a leading candidate". I'd say plurality doesn't give voting power at all to minority groups. After all, look at the American voting seats: all republican or democrats. It's nearly impossible for a minority party to get into a position of power. My opponent goes on and says "they won fair and square". I agree, in plurality, someone always wins. Is this fair though? Is it fair that, in a democracy, the minority rule, not the majority? I contend that it isn't fair, but is in fact unfair. My opponent says it isn't fair on the winning candidate, but I do not see why: the winning candidate gets his seat, the same as in plurality. The only difference is, the other parties get another seat as well. It's not the second best candidate instead of the best, it's the second most votes and the most votes. It's allowing the majority of people to be represented. Referring to the picked up arguments independents are unfairly discriminated against, as major parties can easily dominate them, and force them out of the running. Examples of this is simply by looking at how many seats independents get. And what's the point of voting for an independent when there's only two major parties, the natural state of a plurality system? People vote Conservative because they don't want Labour in power. Lib Dems aren't popular for their ideology: they're popular purely because people don't like the two major parties. Minority parties are disriminated against in the plurality system, and not given fair representation. Candidates are elected in America, if I remember correctly and forgive me if I am wrong, through the delegates, not the general populace. If people are voted in by the general populace, through open list either way, which is commonly seen as being a form of proportional representation, hence affirming the resolution. Tactical Voting has been addressed in this round, so I accept that this has been picked up. To conclude, Proportional Representation is more democratic. It allows minority views to be represented, while stopping minority views from dominating the entire political landscape. It stops events such as gerrymandering, tactical voting, and other undemocratic tactics, and finally it allows democracy to be done. Plurality voting is something which we need to notice has too many flaws to be in place. Let's follow the route of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and dozens of other democratic countries by making our democracy PR: By making our democracy democratic.