Damien

Well FPTP does have advantages. It's one of the ways of ensuring a direct representative for a constituency in Parliament. You obviously have a party you vote for but in this system you also have someone who is your MP and can represent the constituency itself in Westminster. It's rarely needed but there can be times when someone is in a odd situation that requires intervention from their MP. A lot of people value that direct link.

There are other reasons too. One of them is it allows for Independent runs based on local issues which wouldn't be possible in a pure PR system where a party would need a broad vote across the country rather than getting support based on, for example, a local campaign about a closure of a hospital or school.

In fact in a pure PR system then you don't elect a person at all. Everyone would have to vote for a party and run under that party's banner. People moan about career politicians but this is the ultimate career politician's system. Representatives are not selected based on their character or local appeal but from approved party lists which are drawn up by the party itself.

Theoretically that also gives them less legitimacy to rebel against the party whip as no one elected them, they elected their party. Zac Goldsmith for example would have legitimate reason to rebel against a whipped Tory vote on Heathrow because although his party may want it his constituents do not.

Finally it also is designed to return a strong Government. I.E It usually gives a extra amount of seats to the party with the larger voter share so that they can command a majority. Some PR systems try to work this in by giving a 'bonus' amount of seats to whoever won the most seats.

I think FFTP no longer works with the fragmented party support we have now. Those advantages above don't outweigh the drawbacks of people not getting who they voted for but it's not as if FFTP is completely flawed.