Citation needed. Why do you not think the opposite:

Many people did not vote UKIP as they thought it would be a ‘wasted’ vote. Many voted ‘Green’ in a none-of-the-above protest?

“Vote for A!”, “No, vote for B!”, “No, vote for C!”
Hooray, A got 30%, B got 40%, C got 30%.

Now A and C are going into coalition. Maybe we’ll give you A, which 30% of you voted for. Or may we’ll give you D a “compromise” which no one voted for. But we have a 60% mandate – note that voting for an individual party doesn’t mean I approve of all possible coalitions containing that party.

Not that FPTP is so great. The point is that, because there’s no such thing as the single preference of a group of individuals, voting always leads to weird outcomes. See Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Voting is not generally a good way to make decisions, because they trap everyone with a single outcome.

Under majoritarian rule, 51% of people can vote 49% into slavery.

Not all options are mutually exclusive and compromises can often be made which although not ideal of all (or at least a sizeable majority) of voters are at least acceptable. Also no single party would be able to form a government without the support of an actual majority of voters under PR.

I would also be concerned about the election of the second house in this way for exactly the reasons you give but also I feel the second house should have a longer term and should ideally be populated with people who have some form of expertise in order for the second house to continue it’s main function which is (supposedly) non-party political expert scrutiny of legislation from the lower house. How one would achieve this I don’t know but the longer terms I think are vital and perhaps after your 1 long term (say 10 to 15 years) you would not be allowed to re-run thus removing the vote chasing mentality which often distorts political opinion. You could also elect this house in stages of maybe a third of the number every 5 years so as to have a slow churn or “lords” through the house thus maintaining that expert capacity both in terms of specific areas but also on constitutional and parliamentary procedural issues.

So what is your solution? Armed reveloution?

With a PR system hard left parties would be able to get into parliament and even into government as a coalition and from there they can change the narrative and focus we currently have and attempt to move us away from capitalism (assuming they have the support for it).

I have no time for people who are not prepared to convince others that their ideas are the best and instead incite their follows to violence whether real or wishfully thought.

I often have done.

These are interesting suggestions. Why don’t you expand upon them more on your site?