I haven't found anyone recently who doesn't believe we need some form of Electoral Reform, so what is the best system for the UK? The First Past the Post system has worked reasonably well for hundreds of years. However, it is open to abuse by cynical boundary adjustments providing the current mess where results are skewed to benefit the Labour Party. The Tories on 36% only get 306 seats, whereas Labour in 2005 got 35% and 356 seats and were able to continue to ruin the country for a further 5 years. Cameron seems to favour having fewer MPs. Since 1802 we have had around 650 constituencies and the Boundary Commission's guidance says no significant variance from 620 (+30 is considered on the limit of variance). How many does Cameron envisage - would 300 be too few? 500 not a significant change? Basically, he wants to engineer a system where the Tory vote in the larger countryside constituencies is reflected in a higher proportion of seats to the detriment of Labour's smaller urban constituencies.. It could work, but would it be any fairer? If we're sent down the Lib Dem route of PR, which system works best and again is it any fairer? The open or closed List systems are operated by most democratic Governments but opens the door to more career politicians. I actually like having a local MP who I feel is accountable to me every 5 years. If I was suddenly foistered with the likes of Jacquie Smith, Hazel Blears or even Edwina Curry, I'd be mightily p*ssed off.. Do any ARSSERs have views or experience of what works and what doesn't in other countries they'd like to share? I do believe we need to change but don't want to see us all pushed down to route of a fudged compromise. PS The question relates to HoC representation - the reform of our 2nd House is a completely different can of worms!