Proportional representation merely supports the real scourge of democracy, the party system.

Why should votes placed in one constituency be used as an argument to support the view that more, (or fewer), members of a particular party should have a voice in Parliament? The basis of our democracy is that I vote for an individual to represent me - the person I vote for may belong to a particular party but that doesn't give other members of that party any right to my vote.

So what if 4 million votes were cast for individuals who were UKIP members - that is irrelevant - the important and deciding factor is that apart from in one constituency those who stood for election and were members of UKIP were judged by those entitled to vote for them as inferior in their ability to represent them than the candidate who was elected. All that proportional representation achieves is to ensure that candidates who aren't supported by the majority of voters get the same right to vote in Parliament as those who are - that is NOT democracy!

We've had this same argument over the number of women MPs, the number of MPs who are from the ethnic minorities, disabled, from the gay community etc. The answer to 'fairer representation is not to change the voting system but for those groups that cannot get their candidates elected is to put forward better candidates.

I live in an area, as do the majority of us in this country, where candidates from a particular party will invariably get elected no matter how good or bad they may be. The only democratic solution to this is to separate party affiliations from the campaign process - the first step in my opinion should be to remove their party membership details from ballot slips - there is no more reason for a candidates party to appear on these slips than there is for their gender, sexuality or race.