> When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to

> When you're elected from a single-member electorate, there's a lot more incentive to be inclusive and to govern for all. Well, no. In FPTP, you just have to cater to a plurality of the voters in your district. You very specifically do not and should not "govern for all". Out of a U.S. population of 313 million, you should govern for a group of perhaps 50,000 (less, really) people in your district - the only ones capable of voting you out of office. The U.S. has a huge number of extraordinarily radical and pain-in-the-ass representatives - over a quarter of the U.S. House is currently trying to force the country to default on its debts, because those are the views of the pertinent slice of their individual electorates. You seem basically to be upset at the idea that any politician might exist with any sort of radical-to-you views. You seem to prefer stultifying politics, where a few rich white men meet together over brandy and decide what's going to happen, and everyone follows along nicely. That preference is not shared by everyone, or even most people. PR allows views with wide but shallow representation to get represented in government, and that's considered a good thing by most people.