Mr. Cretney wrote in part- One point you mention is "locality of representation." Leaving aside the issues of proportionality, and list vs. individual systems, I would argue that locality of representation is actually a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't make sense to compromise some other standard in pursuit of it. --- D- The current regime of single member districts automatically produces circa 25 percent ANTI-democratic minority rule (U.S.A. House of Representatives, every house of every State legislature in the U.S.A., U.K. House of Commons, Canada House of Commons). Technically, a plurality of the votes in a bare majority of the districts for control by one party or roughly 1/2 the votes in 1/2 the districts = circa 1/4 of the votes. In the U.S.A. it is much worse since there are plurality winners in primary elections in 40 States -- top 2 runoff primaries in 10 States. De facto result- when there is no incumbent, the new person gets nominated by circa 10 percent of the total voters (i.e. is chosen de facto by various special interest gangs) -- circa 40 percent of the voters in the party having circa 60 percent of the total primary votes which is circa 40 percent of all voters. With 3 or more strong parties (as in the U.K. and Canada), the minority rule math is worse. Result of the above---- the very long term business- as- usual evil and corruption in each of the above governments (especially in the tax and spend laws). Thus, ANY sort of half way decent proportional representation method would make a world of difference.