Jimbob said (see prior thread):
Exactly. This is an important point, when the current system means an MP literally represents his or her constituents. So you have MP's from deprived areas representing the interests of that area in the House whilst the rich landowners have theirs. The true problem is population density. The poorer areas tend to be crammed chocablock with people per square mile, which means one constituency with 26,000 people living cheek by jowl has the same representation in parliament as a couple of thousand people spread out over a leafy county sipping at their ice cold beer lazing about in their mansions.
Of course, should there be PR then the opposite problem occurs, so you have the unwashed masses having the most representation, because there are many more of them, whilst great swathes of the country area-wise (for example farmers) have their interests suddenly at the mercy of the populists.
We have PR here in Finland and whilst the north still tends to vote Centre Party (used to be the agricultural party), of course, the urban centres, where more than 25% of the population live tend to the liberal-conservative right, at least recently. So the governments tend to be coalitions because with five or more parties, it is rare to get a full majority. So ATM we have the conservatives sharing power with the far right Basic Finns (think UKIP), even though this sector inhabits a small area by size (big cities and suburbs).
Whilst I think coalition parties work well, proportional representation is not necessarily the answer to the problem of ensuring everybody is represented fairly, or even that your part of the country has a vocal say in the Commons.
