Democracy - is it a myth.

The assumption made by the so called democratically elected parliamentarian, the MP, that they represent their specific constituency is clearly bogus and yet it is the repeated claim thrown around by the Members of Parliament. 

Elections are the method democracies choose to find who should represent the population at large. The assumption that a majority of one is sufficient to also represent the losers (by that one vote) is clearly suspect. A proposition that can not bare reasonable scrutiny if we wanted to represent a wider set of political views and reach out to a wider audience.
The MP this morning arguing that he represented the constituency of where ever, would make some people in his constituency seethe with anger to hear this. They are poles apart from his political persuasion but he garners their silent voice as if of his own fruition. It's a deceit made far worse by the first past the post system favoured by the major party.

It's a system which allows UKIP to win 4 million votes or 12.6% of the national vote and only one seat in Parliament, whilst in Scotland roughly the same number of people but only 4.7% of the Scottish vote gathered 56 seats in the Scottish Parliament.
It's crazy and immoral if the representation in Parliament is so biased because remember for every successful vote there is usually a greater number who voted for a composite of some other party. Add the fact that in our Parliamentary system there are no checks and balances on the party which wins. It elects its lead minister (The Prime Minister) who then decides who will be in the subordinate team and for 5 years he/she rules the direction of the country.

The Prime Minister has enormous power and unlike the President of the United States does not have to fight Congress to get a bill through to legislation. Of course we have the unedifying sight of the political system in the States being brought into deadlock by the ideological impasse of the Republican Congress which blocks the President irrespective of the value of any amendment or bill the President wishes to make.
It amazed me when a few years ago the British public voted down a referendum on Proportional Representation, well not quite, since the PR system was not on the ballot paper and instead a bastardised system called the Alternative Vote was put forward and overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. It would appear that the existing disproportional voting system is in tune with the British public but there I must correct myself, it's only the English public who reject the impediment of a system which is so unrepresentative. The Welsh, the Scots and Northern Ireland have all installed Proportional Representation in their own parliaments having rejected First Past the Post.
Is it a mutation in the English persons mental make up, that  they shrink from not having to 'doff their cap to his Lordship' and find it impossible to go against the status quo of Establishment think.
The Home Counties and their proximity to London (the reason why they are called Home Counties) have a kinship with Parliament that is different to the rest of England and whist the fit is more understandable I can not understand any affinity with Westminster if you come from the North.
Interest in voting for a political party has declined since when I was young. Then people took politics much more seriously and believed in the political system as a way to govern and adapt the countries resources to their needs. Today that has all but gone with the advent of globalisation/collectivisation diminishing the role of national parliaments.
Perhaps the Brexit referendum has woken people up to the discontent lying in various pockets of the society and the power of the individual binary vote in a referendum has shaken the establishment to the core.
Voting and representation is important, as is transparency and objective commentary. The media bias which is in private hands needs to be questioned and whilst freedom of commentary is essential, plain disingenuous reporting should be curbed on all sides.
If lies are published and propagated as fact, they should be subject to the same rules which apply when lies are published about a person. It might make the journalist and his owner think twice before splashing their tabloid headlines.