First past the post is difficult to get rid of

The difference between first past the post and proportional representation is that with pr the people genuinely rule the country. If they want tyranny they will be able to get it as we have seen in history and if they want peace and freedom that is also available... as we have seen. The significant difference with fptp is that it provides a barrier for the establishment to protect itself from the aspirations of the country as a whole. Whether this is a good thing depends on what the people want and what the establishment want. If the government is more liberal than the people then fptp is to be welcomed because liberalism is the route to wealth and peace. If the people are more liberal than the government then pr is preferable. Part of the problem with fptp is that the ruling establishment can find it difficult to relate to the (economic) problems of the people because they are insulated from them. First past the post is not intrinsically bad... whether it is good or bad depends on whether democracy is good. The advantage of fptp over pr is that with fptp it requires a radical to convince only the establishment of their great idea whereas with pr they would be required to convince the entire country which would be more difficult. Fptp is inherently susceptible to radicals for this reason. But is also means that if the people have 'woken up' to a problem facing the country that the politicians are unaware of then it is very unlikely that they will be able to get what they want... to the detriment of the country. If democracy is a suspect ideology then fptp is to be preferred.