Your representative is not supposed to represent individuals, but communities. By definition this is going to be the majority opionion of everyone in your community. I don't expect my representative to share my views, but I do expect that they will reflect those of my community. If I want to change something I lobby my community not my representative.

To me, that makes matters worse, not better. You are telling me that disenfranchising people like me that hold non-mainstream political views is by design. That's outright offensive to me.

You are also wrong: It is not by definition going to be the majority opinion of everyone in my "community".

For starters, the person who won the seat I live in got 43% of the vote. The majority of my community wanted other people to represent them.

The current system the worst of both worlds: Single seat constituencies without even the pretence of trying to find a candidate a majority would stand behind.

Secondly, lets disabuse ourselves of the notion that the electoral boundaries matches a "community". They do not.

My seat includes uppper class areas in Shirley, with million pound mansions, as well as council estates like New Addington - the latter is one of the places in the UK with the lowest average life expectancy. The electoral seat encompasses perhaps a dozen separate communities that rarely mixes other than superficially. We can see clearly how divided this seat is - as many others - by looking at council election results, where various wards go very, very firmly on way or the other, while the seat as a whole is a very marginal seat (this election the Tory incumbent held onto his seat with a 165 vote plurality).

In reality, if one were to draw up geographically based communities based on how people actually live and work and interact together, there'd be maybe a dozen separate areas.

Apart from the flaw of thinking that areas as large as a parliamentary seat - even in London where the population density means the physical areas are fairly small - will be homogenous enough or closely enough linked to represent a single community, when you look at the overall electoral results you see pretty clearly that "community" does no longer - if it ever did - match geographical boundaries. Communities are split between parties that stands so far apart that pretending that community is geographical is a joke.

But in the end whether or not you believe that the representative should represent a community, or that the point is to represent the voices of the people, the fact is that this system leaves millions upon millions of users without a voice where it matters, and without the ability to influence decisions in parliament if they vote their conscience.

You may think that's acceptable. I don't. I find it an affront to the very idea of democracy.

You are not disenfranchised. Every single person has opinions that are not supported by their community and hence their representative does not (should not) support these minority views. If you want to change things you need to convince the people around you that things need to change.

I should say I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but the solution is to change the mind of those in your community and the politics will follow.

While I may not technically be disenfranchised, the effect is the same: My vote does not matter. My opinions will not be represented.

From my point of view, having the right to vote or not is worthless in this system, as it does not provide any influence (I accept that it matters to many others - if your views are close enough to one of the big parties, then things are different).

Democracy is about legitimacy first and foremost: If those who take part does not see the system as legitimate, it isn't legitimate. And that is not down to a majority to decide. That is down to society as a whole. And this is a lesson many "democracies" still have yet to learn. Yes, we can't get everyone to agree on what makes a legitimate system, but a system that actively shuts out millions is not legitimate whether or not a majority thinks it is.

> If you want to change things you need to convince the people around you that things need to change.

This is just pure nonsense unless you happen to live in an area that is politically homogenous and populated with people are politically relatively close to you.

We have a problem where the system is geared for a century ago when communities where geographically close. I have more in common with people politically close to me on the other side of the globe than I have with my next door neighbour (who'd like me deported since I'm not born here).

I should not need to convince a plurality of a local "community" (that doesn't exist) of my views to get a single voice in parliament if far higher number of people across the country holds the same views.

So to me, this government has no legitimate authority. I abide by laws because of the consequences of not doing so, not because I accept the legitimacy of this government.

A single voice in parliament unless it shared by many other is worthless. To effect change you need convince the majority that change is needed. Take marriage equality (gay marriage) as an example. This is most definitely a policy of importantace to a small minority that the majority did not once support. Over time a small core of strong supporters have been able to convince their communities of the need for change. Once the greater community is onside the political will follows.

Anyone with minority political views is always going to frustrated in a democracy. Even if every issue was voted on directly by all citizens then without the support of the majority any proposal you support will be rejected. To effect change you need to change the minds of your neighbours. The good thing about modern society is improved communication allows an individual to influence others far away and effect change on a national and international basis where once they were confined to those physically around them.