South Africa now has PR. This is for the same reason that STV was introduced in Northern Ireland. It was so minority people (i.e. white in SA or Catholic in NI) could have proportionate representation in their parliaments. In other words to be fair to everyone!
All PR does is reflect the views of the voters more accurately.
Most African states that are dubious democracies (there are a lot e.g. Zimbabwe) choose FPTP, because it is easier to rig!
In Europe, the UK is the most unequal society and PR countries are the most equal, same is true about PR in South America and Africa!
Proving the link between PR and equality is like trying to prove passive smoking is harmful to health. It is obviously true but very difficult to isolate from others factors to prove it absolutely, but the evidence is there if anaylsed deeply!
I'm actually doubtful that the USA can be called a democracy anymore under their FPTP system? Look at what FPTP has encouraged in the USA. There is widespread concern at their voting procedures, (e.g. 5 hour queues to vote, disenfrachisement of black people, drawing boundaries to suit winning parties, employing voting machines made by companies funding one political party!) Not to mention their right wing media! This is the way we are heading!
If the Tories win next time with 35% of the vote, they change the size of the boundaries to disadvantage us. Under PR the Tories could not win. PR is the only way to prevent another dose of Thatcherism that most people vote against!
PR cannot be gerrymandered. Here is why! AMS is a proportional system with constituency boundaries! No matter how much you manipulate the boundaries and change the constituency results, this is always corrected by the top-up results to give the end proportional result. Same with other PR systems like Cellular Constituencies. List PR systems do not have constituencies so obviously can't be fiddled!
STV is not strictly a PR system, it would be theretically possibe to change results here, though it would be much more difficult than FPTP because of the large size of constituencies.
The Lib Dems are con artists! But people 'think' they have progressive policies. Therefore 60% consistently vote for progressive policies. The Lib Dems in coalition government would be found out and the progressive voters would change to a more progressive party, i.e. Labour!
1992 Tory Government didn't need urban Tory MPs:
Apart from suburban areas, the Tories were dead and still won the election.
"If others cannot agree among themselves then thats their look out". I'm afraid it's the voters who are punished for this.
I will give you an example. If I was in a marginal where it was very close between Labour and Tory, it would be worth my while funding UKIP to stand, to help Labour get elected. Same for the Tories, it would be worth their while funding a left wing party or the Greens to help them win the seat. That is how ridiculous and unfair our electoral system is.
Socialism to me, means concern for the welfare of everyone. PR means concern for the views of everyone. PR=Socialism!
The Labour Party is just a vehicle, it is not the aim. It is policies that come first. How can we get socialist policies? That is what is important. The Labour party is being strangled by FPTP.