First Past The Post does not protect the rights of the individual

It's not the local constituencies that matter, it's what matters happens Nationally...

When we vote in a General Election, most voters are intending to make their views heard on a National level, not local. Whatever the representative may achieve, is shared by all. Laws apply equally across the country. It is of no particular advantage to the voter to have a diligent and intelligent local senator, or member of parliament, since their input is only relevant insofar as it affects the Nation. What the voter wants is for National policies to be affected.

Spending time to chose a good MP is of little reward, we want a representative who will tip the balance in our favour when votes are cast. We are picking a team member, not an advocate. It doesn't much matter if the candidate is capable or not, they are being chosen for their allegiance, primarily. The intention of the voter is to influence the National outcome.

By rewarding the first candidate to gain the majority, plurality, in any constituency, in each case, it is to the detriment of the voters' intentions.

The politicians, of each side, generally vote along partisan lines not on conscience. Individual parties can easily gain an ascendancy this way. Each party will not constrain themselves, they will vote for their agenda in spite of it harming the greater good perhaps. Those under-represented, in the case of a landslide, do not have their rights protected.