I wished to respond to points made by Dan and Spidie in my last post but for some reason blogger is being an arse, so I'll post my points as an entry:
I'm not exactly sold on PR or anything - but my view is we already have the worst aspect of a PR system, ie party rule
A primary or caucus would certainly be better - but that has flaws, everyone would have to join the party, leading us to American-style politics and an even more cemented two-party system
I also still don't like the 'local' thing - it's all very well to use a caucus to elect a decent local candidate but until the MP actually has some sort of power then all I see is a disjointed system propping up the two main parties - direct plurality voting is fine, but you're not actually voting for that MP to represent you, you're voting for the party as a whole - to me, until that's changed, the FPtP system remains intrinsically unfair, the way parliament works needs a change first
Weak government? Often thrown out, and it's true it's hard to get rid of a government totally, but can we really say we have 'strong' government? Most people seem to hark back to Thatcher when talking about that...is Brown strong? Did we really like the electoral dictatorship of 'president' Blair?
The choice we get is Brown and Cameron - doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference, what exactly are we voting for? All I see is two parties who want power
Personally I think it's a red herring when there's really only two major countries that use our system - the US and us, are we any better off than Germany, or indeed most major nations?
I don't really support PR as such, but simply see it as the lesser of two evils, I think it would be fairer in our current situation...but really Parliament needs a massive overhaul in general and people need to be more engaged and I think the plurality system we have is a massive impediment to voter engagement