This house believes that proportional representation should replace Plurality systems

This is the tournament debate. Rules have already been set out, and linked in comments. The BoP is shared.FPTP = First Past the PostPR = Proportional RepresentationI shall attempt to prove two things: Firstly, that FPTP is flawed, and secondly that PR is the best alternative.The Flaws of First Past the postFirstly, plurality elections tend to lead to a situation where the government is elected on a minority of votes cast. If we look at recent UK elections: We can see that the popular vote is always a minority and not a majority. Moreover, if all countries had FPTP, then most countries would be elected on a minority of votes. Because the government is claiming mandates on minority of votes makes the legitimacy of a democratic government dubious at best. The lack of legitimacy promotes undemocratic government, and shows plurality systems to be flawed.Also, if you look at the first graph, you can see how the Lib Dem party is repeatedly underrepresented. Repeatedly and consistently have the Lib Dems recieved less seats, even with a rough 20% of the votes. On average, a conservative seat costs 35,000 votes, Labour 33,000, yet Lib Dem a staggering 120,000 votes per seat. This kind of event is something that would constantly occur in a nation with more than two political parties with any sort of following. This is blatantly undemocratic, and shows FPTP to be flawed.[1] Furthermore, votes aren't even of equal value a large amount of the time. Cameron's constituency in Witney[2] gives him 60% of the votes, with 40% more than the next highest competitor. Any votes against him there are wasted in FPTP, but in a PR system they can go to other parties and candidates. As voters realise their votes are wasted, this creates two things: firstly, it creates public apathy. Less and less people are inclined to vote simply because their vote doesn't count[3]. A system that disregards people's votes is simply unreasonably flawed.Moreover, the second problem is that votes go to a specific party because they want to vote against a different one. Libertarians may vote for republicans simply so the democrats do not get power, or a Green may vote Labour to stop the conservatives. Campaigns turn into a "the other party is rubbish" instead of "we're the better party", and becomes simply about degrading the others. Tactical voting is a serious problem in FPTP, but not in PR: FPTP is the only system where tactical voting is a serious problem, in AV or AMS it is smaller, but in PR, it is not a problem at all.Finally, the way that FPTP more or less stops other successful parties forming. There is a serious problem with political atrophy (as well as apathy), meaning a stangant situation where new political ideas are stifled. This is especially prominent in the USA, where only 2 parties recieved any electoral votes. FPTP stifles new political ideas, as well as the return of old ones, and prohibits the development of new parties.As I have now discussed the many flaws of the Plurality system, I will present my case: The Proportional Representation alternative. The system, which is used in most modern democracies, is an incredibly popular, incredibly democratic, and incredibly successful system. I hope to justify all these three.Firstly, the system means that voters would be given more choices. This would be an increase from the one or two that FPTP promises to a much larger and open political stage, with many more parties. This means that other parties with more conservative values, or more liberal values, or libertarian values can jump onto the main stage. This would promote democracy, and show how Proportional Representation would be a better system.It would also balance the value of each vote. Under STV[4], the Lib Dems would gain roughly a 100 seats, making their seat number a lot more aligned with the voting population, and make them represent many times better.Furthermore, if STV was adopted, then one can vote for a candidate inside one's own party. Instead of incredibly long debates about who should represent what party, you can vote for who you want to represent you, not have some delegates choose you want to vote for. The system would be many times better, and many times more democratic.My final argument comes in the form of this video, by John Cleese. In 1983, the SDP/Liberal Alliance, with 26% of the vote, got 23 seats. 23 seats in Parliament. Labour, with 28% of the vote, got over 200! "This system is not fair. Not fair to the voters. It took 40k votes to elect a labour MP, 33k voters to elect a conservative, and it took ten times that number, 240,000 voters, to elect 1 SDP/Liberal MP." http://www.youtube.com...Thank you for reading. I plan on adding to my arguments in the next round, and look forward to reading the response.1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.guardian.co.uk...3 - http://www.electology.org...4 - http://tinyurl.com...