Proportional representation trades one set of problems for another, though. If you look at the journey from citizen opinion to passed bill, there's a reconcili

Proportional representation trades one set of problems for another, though. If you look at the journey from citizen opinion to passed bill, there's a reconciliation process, where those opinions are sorted and filtered to consensus and final vote. Without proportional representation, more of that process happens earlier. More responsibility given to voters to burden some of that compromise process. When people complain about "lesser of two evils" when thinking of candidates in primaries, or doing calculus on who has a better chance in the general election, that's an expression of that process. With proportional representation, voters have less of that burden, and have a better chance of electing someone that is closer to exactly what they want. But the burden doesn't go away - instead, that burden increases in the deliberative body itself. More factions and more division in the House. I'm not trying to represent one approach as better or worse - just saying it's a trade-off, and it isn't the case that proportional representation is "better". From the citizen voter's perspective, maybe, but from the citizen that cares about the final outcome via House bills, it's not so clear.