[St Charles Owl]

I think 'first past the post' is a way outdated system, it makes everything seat based rather than voter based.

That's why the DUP have ten times more seats than the greens despite getting about half of the votes the greens got. Its also why Blair got a parliamentary majority in 2005 despite getting 35% of the vote and Atlee lost to Churchill in 1951 despite getting more votes.

Yet we call the EU undemocratic.

Until a proper alternative to first past the post is created I cannot see our system changing. The UK parliament was set up to allow citizens to nominate through local election a person to represent them, therefore we have 650 constituencies where in a GE those constituencies elect their representative. If you simply moved to a proportional representation system then their will be no local accountability or even local focus from anyone in the House of Commons, the focus will only ever be on the party as a whole. Countries that have Presidents tend to use PR for that part of the election but then still have local elections to elect their representatives in government, similar to what they have here in the US. Neither system is perfect but each have benefits.

At the 2015 election a PR system would have seen both the Tories and Labour lose a bunch of seats with the Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP being the biggest gainers, in fact UKIP would have ended up with 83 seats. The biggest losers would have been the parties that only campaign in certain regions such as the SNP, DUP etc, they would have seen the number of seats they have almost decimated in some cases due to the relatively small amount of votes they receive compared to the national parties.