On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".
No, what is a fallacy is to change what I say, so that it somehow resembles what I said but is not what I said, and then go on to refute me. And it's not the first time you've done that to me.
I don't know what you expect me to respond to. You want me to agree with you about your rebuttal to what I didn't say? Okay, you're right.
Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?
Let's create the
Paxmanian scale of Authoritarism ranging from 10 - North Korea (where normal people do not dare to even utter a word to a journalist) to 0 - Switzerland (who like referendums as sport).
A system in which there is a difference of 50 million people in favour of option A (Dems) versus option B (Reps) and yet still option B gets simlar results to A in the Senate seems more towards the 4 than towards the 7. Same system that get more people voting for Hilary, but gets you Trump as POTUS.
You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough). Well, in my view it is because in a democracy more people decide over less people. All people have some individual rights (e.g. freedom of movement, no indentured servitude,...) and there are some general rights (e.g. free press), other than that, it is all about majorities yes.
I tend to use humour for illustration purposes, but I hope this addresses the core issues correctly.