This house believes that proportional representation should replace Plurality systems

First off, I apologize for my round 2 argument, that was supposed to be in the comments section, my bad.A plurality election is any election where 3 or more candidates are running for an election, where the winner only needs a plurality of votes to win. Only difference between a plurality and a majority win is that whoever wins the plurality only wins the most votes which is less then 50%, whereas a majority win is an election where a candidate wins over 50% of the votes and thus is the democratically elected pick to be elected. For example, 1988: George H.W. Bush = 53% of the popular voteMichael Dukakis = 47% of the popular vote^Majority election where the winner had over 50% of the vote1992:Bill Clinton = 43% of the popular voteGeorge H.W. Bush = 38% of the popular voteRoss Perot = 19% of the popular vote^Plurality election where only the person who gets the most amount of votes, but doesnt have to have a majority (>50%) of all votes castPlurality systems are commonly used in the US and the UK where two main parties and an outside third party can compete for an elected position. The system the Pro is arguing for in this case is Proportional Representation, a system where the proportion of elected officials accurately represents the votes cast for an ideology. First off, proportional representation can only be applied towards Congressional or Parliamentary elections, not presidential elections, so plurality elections are already very important if a minor party or an independent wants to make a presidential run. Secondly though, the main issue of this whole debate is the issue that Plurality systems do not represent the proportion of votes cast towards an ideology as much as proportional representation does. However plurality systems that cause disproportional representation is attributed to the geography of the voters and where the votes are cast from, not the voting system itself. Heres an example, lets pretend in an election held in and around London goes as suchLabour Party = 2,700,00 votes = 54%Tory party = 2,200,000 Votes = 44%Liberal Democrats = 100,000 Votes = 2%Seat goes to the Labour PartyNow lets pretend in another city we see similar results, lets take LiverpoolLabour Party = 2,200,000 Votes = 44%Tory Party = 2,750,000 Votes = 54%Liberal Democrats = 100,000 Votes = 2%Seat goes to the Tory Party But now in the far off country side, similar results to the last two elections in other citiesLabour Party = 250 Votes = 25%Tory Party = 150 Votes = 15%Liberal Democrats = 600 Votes = 60%Seat goes to the Liberal Dem PartyEach party rightfully earned a seat in the house. But proportionally there is an issue, if we tally up all the votes each party got we see something concerningNow out of 10,051,000 votes cast, 200,600 = Liberal Democrat 4,900,250 = Labour 4,950,150 = Tory Now each party got a seat, yet the Liberal Democrat party is clearly lacking compared to the other two parties, in fact Liberal Democrat voters only make up 2% of the total vote, yet they still got a seat through plurality elections. Had there been a proportional representation system in place, then the Liberal democrat party wouldnt have a seat at all, meaning that either a representative of the Tory party or the Labour Party would be elected to represent the countryside town even though they voted in a majority for a Liberal Democratic representative. To summarize this whole example, in a proportional representation system the countryside town would be forced to be represented by a party that the people did not want at all, which goes directly against Democracy and its ideals. Proportional Representation = Politicians represent populations that may prefer a different party than that of the candidates but overall all parties are represented proportionately Plurality System = All places, small or large, get to elect politicians who represent their political preference but the total proportion of elected officials to not align with the voting trends of the population. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but Plurality systems are better democracy wise because in Plurality systems the populations still get to choose who represents them whereas in Proportional representation politicians are selected based on how the entire country votes, not on how a particular town or district votes. This means that centers of heavily concentrated populations have the power to determine the political ideology of the voters within the city and in the less populated areas around the city in proportional representation systems. I believe I have made my point, if there are any arguments I overlooked I will address them in the next round.