This house believes that proportional representation should replace Plurality systems

Geography in Politics"However, the real problem is that they (The Liberal Dems) come second in a lot of constituencies"Ok but it shows that Geography is still the issue because almost throughout the country there are more people supporting another party then them. "This means that almost 16,000 voters for the Lib Dem party are not represented. Add in Labour's unrepresented 7,000 and UKIP's 2,100 and you have around 25,000 voters not being fairly represented, contrasting the 16,000 who are: a blatantly unrepresentative, undemocratic system"Well what would be the alternative? The Liberal dems had barely less votes and if they got the seat then it would be 16,000 Conservatives and 7,000 labour party supporters and a couple others and in the end you have even LESS democracy then before. "If STV was in place, a version of PR, then multi-member consituencies would come to exist, and drastically reduce the number of wasted votes"STV = Single Transferable Vote, is a system where voters dont just vote for ONE candidate, they vote for EVERY candidate in order of preference. It is a form of Proportional representation The problems with this system is that it makes it significantly harder to count votes, not everyone has a ranking order of candidates where they support 1 candidate and despise all the others, it could force people to end up supporting people they despise, and it allows voters to use their votes to gang up on candidates they hate unfairly. Lets take a Ron Paul fan who hates Romney (I can name a few on this site alone), he loves Ron Paul and hates Romney, so he votes for Paul, then Gingrich, then Santorum, then Romney. But the election comes around and Ron Paul is the first to go, so now that same vote goes to Gingrich. Gingrich though has to drop out too, so now that same vote goes to Santorum. What just happened was that one single person cast three votes against a single candidate, and its somehow legal.....STV allows 1 person to vote 2, 3, 4, or even 5 or more times depending on the number of candidates on the ticket... If you look at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll there were 10 candidates on the ballothttp://en.wikipedia.org...If the Ames Iowa Straw Poll was to determine a winner than it would be possible for one person to vote possibly 9 times while others are limited only to one. Point is, STV gives a hell of a lot more voting power to people who dont support a leading candidate then it does people who do support a leading candidate. Plurality systems are strictly 1 person = 1 vote which is perfectly fair. "PR would solve the problem of the Lib Dems coming second by giving them seats as per the number of votes they get, even if they come second, to let them be fairly represented. To allow the voter to be represented by someone they voted for."But the problem is the voters DIDNT VOTE FOR THEM, they voted for someone else and they won fair and square but now because other places saw the same thing that justifies having a candidate from the losing party represent a population of people who wanted somebody else in the first place? Thats not fair to the people who voted for the winning candidate and are still being represented by someone who got less votes. " borders are constantly adjusted to keep the population of a constituency roughly similar to other areas."Yes but that keeps the number of people equal, not the number of political affiliations equal.... It is possible to make it so that one area creates a roughly equal amount of political affiliations and then others with a TON of one affiliation which would cause misrepresentation. At this point geography becomes the issue again and not Plurality systems. "Only 9 out of the 650 constituencies are outside the range of 60,000 to 90,000 seats. "The problem with geography though is that in Proportional Representation votes can carry over to other districts if the goal is to have a house that reflects the voting proportions of the populations. 2 districts have 75,000 seatsIn 1 district Liberals get 60,000 of them, Tories get 14,000, Labor gets 1,000In the other district the Tories get 26,000, Liberals get 25,000, Labor gets 24,000Liberals = 1 seat = 84,000Tories = 1 seat = 40,000Labor = 0 seats = 25,000The point is even in districts of equal populations the geography of the political affiliations of those people could be vastly different and result in misrepresentation, even though the districts have close to equal populations. Geography affects both the plurality system and STV when the goal is proportional representation because proportional representation results in candidates representing districts who wanted someone else, whereas plurality systems chose people with the majority fo votes to represent districts at the expense of proportional representation. Before moving to new arguments, I want to point out arguments conceded:STV allows the vote value of each seat to become more balanced, and the plurality system unfairly unbalances them.Even though I argued in round 2 how STV allows candidates to be elected even though a population prefers someone elseSTV allows one to vote for a candidate inside one's party, and is therefore preferable in a Parliamentary system.Even though you can vote for the candidate inside one's party in ANY voting systemSTV allows other parties and ideas to access the political stage with more ease, and allows other parties to form.Even though in plurality systems independents are allowed to run and get votes and form as long as they can get support from voters just like in STVSTV makes tactical voting unnecessaryBy allowing people to be able to vote more times than others for the sake of proportional representation at the expense of one person getting only one vote....Let me end on this, Proportional representation sacrifices equal say and election fairness for equality in an elected house comparable to the voting population, and thats it. Plurality systems allow districts to chose their leaders by preserving one man = one vote and protecting democracy at the expense of the political affiliations of the elected house being comparable to that of the population.