And how large is you local area? 646 MPs and ~60 million citizens gives about 100000 people per MP, and with first-past-the-post you can then easily have ~50000

And how large is you local area? 646 MPs and ~60 million citizens gives about 100000 people per MP, and with first-past-the-post you can then easily have ~50000 people with no representation because they didn't vote for the majority. (Yes, yes, I get your later point how the one elected is everyone's representative, but come on, in reality they're gonna follow their party line most of the time and if that's the opposite of what you think, you are shit out of luck) Contrast that with Sweden where the constituencies and their mandates look like this: http://www.val.se/tidigare_val/val2006/mandatstat/mandfstat_r.html http://www.val.se/tidigare_val/val2006/mandatstat/mandfstat_... I live in Stockholm city which has almost 600k voters and 27 mandates instead of just one. I voted for a smaller party, and they still got two members from my area, so I am represented in our parliament by someone that is both from my area and shares my political views. And so is almost everyone else, regardless of who they voted for. In my opinion, this system is better because you have almost the same benefits as your system with smaller constituencies, but the proportional system doesn't punish smaller parties like yours does. If a party gets 20% of the total vote, they will have about 20% of the seats in parliament as well, which is as it should be.