The U.S. has similar problems to the British system regarding representation.

In Britain, as I understand it, the prime minister is chosen by the party that elects the most MPs. Since some MP races are close and some are not, the party with the most MPs is not necessarily the party that got the most votes.

Our president is the guy who gets the most electoral votes. Those electoral votes are assigned by state, and most states have a "winner take all" system where the guy who wins the state gets *all* the electoral votes for that state.

So you have what happened in 2000, where Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

Similarly, U.S. representatives run in individual districts, just like MPs. So one party may get the most overall votes, but have fewer representatives in Congress.

With the separation of powers, this causes fewer problems here than in Britain. But we have the same structural setup.

What it boils down to is a choice: should a Rep (or MP) represent a particular district, or simply reflect a party's national support? If the idea is to represent a geographical area, then the current system is fine. Of course, we then game the system by gerrymandering district boundaries, but....

__________________
Man up.