Power can be given to unpopular candidates

It is ridiculous that it is sufficient to finish 'first' in an election to gain all the power where people are going to be governed by the winner. There is no reason to have only one winner when representatives are being chosen for a legislature. In fact it makes much more sense to have very many more than one winner because of the inevitable diversity of the electorate. If only one person can 'win' then people will choose the least bad of the candidates which they think have a chance of winning... they will choose someone who they think might win and they can tolerate. This means they are rejecting the other likely candidates which they do not like and hoping they do not win so their vote will count. They are not choosing someone who truly represents them. They are choosing the least bad of the candidates which are likely to win and so they are hoping the other candidates do not do well. With pr it doesn't matter so much how the other candidates do our vote still counts whether they do well or not. With fptp the power and influence of our vote depends on how other candidates do and (only) whether we win. With pr the power of each vote is more-or-less unaffected by how other people choose to vote. We do not need to concern ourselves with which candidates have a chance to win and what is the best way to oppose and block another candidate. With pr our votes blocks all other candidates. The key difference between fptp and pr is that with pr there is no winning post. (And there is no need for a winning post.) With fptp there is a winning post which is that we must gain more votes than all the other candidates and in this event we take all the legislative power. The post is to beat all the other candidates. But we do not need a post... it is perfectly possible to have politics and elections without such a post. We can have elections where power is allocated directly according to the proportion of the votes cast. In this way power is allocated proportionally and it doesn't matter how popular our preferred choice is... the influence of our vote is unaltered. We do not need to work out whether we are voting for a popular candidate. It is possible to have elections where we are not concerned with beating the other candidates but instead with the proportion of votes cast being received by a particular candidate. There is no reason to disproportionately reward a candidate for coming first and winning the election... votes can still be cast according to the proportion of the vote. There is no reason to use a winner-takes-all (fptp) type system and there are many reasons why this type of system is detrimental. (If people are voting tactically they are not being served by the election and the democratic process.) We can give power to all candidates who receive a significant number of votes (above a certain low threshold) not only to the winner. There is no reason t use fptp-type voting systems. There is no reason to reward only the winner in an election. People who don't win can and 'should' receive legislative power for the process to be effective. Not only winners should receive power. People who don't win should also be given power. Power can be given to all voters not only to those who have chosen a popular candidate.