not logged in... What's the core argument? That you wouldn't have a geographically local MP?

It's a thread I ran across, featuring several quotes from Mr. Benn's speech. Looking over them, I'd say his core argument is preference for majority governments over coalitions, with a secondary argument that with FPTP a specific MP is chosen by a specific geographic community, while with PR MPs are chosen by the party.

If you'd like, I could copy out some more quotes.

don't worry about cross quoting.

Wrt geographical representation: I do think it is still of value, but less critical with digital opportunities. There are systems which get more proportional while retaining a geo. rep.

So far enjoying living in Germany: only coalitions since 1946. (No easy comparison between countries, I realise, PR or not is just one factor)

I am rethinking the importance of PR. It is clearly possible to influence politics outside of elections, and making these opportunities more accessible and democratic may compensate for whatever deficiencies the election method has - and it necessarily must have some.

I personally oppose PR for numerous reasons, but maybe the most salient is that (in my view) giving majority governments to parties that win only a plurality of votes is a feature, not a bug. Somewhat to my surprise, I think Tony Benn would agree with me.

With regard to electoral reform, I'm more interested in preferential ballots than PR.