Is it "unfair" that the horse that comes first in the Grand National is the winner?
And is it "unfair" that the bookies don't payout to the people who didn't back the winner?
Of course it isn't "unfair" - that is the system and our parliamentary and electoral system is first past the post. I'm getting a bit fed up of hearing various Lib Dem and Labour supporters of PR coming on television and being allowed to call this system of ours "unfair" without any challenge from the broadcasters.
For instance, in what way would it be "fairer" if the person who was the first choice candidate for more people in a constituency than any other was not the one elected to stand as that constituency's MP? Is that fair? Of course not.
The first thing to understand about our electoral system and the way our parliamentary democracy works is that it is based on an historic and important link between the people and parliament - the single MP constituency.
Every constituency has one MP and one MP only that they can send to parliament and the job of that MP is to represent the people of that constituency in parliament. There are flaws to this of course, not least the power of the party system through their whips to coerce reluctant dissenting party members - but we the people still retain that historic and very direct link to our government. Very few other systems can make the same claim.
Under a proportional representation system we can not have these single MP constituencies - because, as they are now, they are already "proportional". The candidate who gets the most vote also has the highest proportion of the vote - and so gets to sit in parliament. That is a fair proportional representation system is it not?
But what the Lib Dems and some Labour people want is something else - they want the number of seats in parliament to be decided by the number of votes cast nationally. You can not work this system and retain the historic and direct link between people and parliament - the only way to do it is to have a party list of candidates who get a seat depending on the national proportion of the vote.
What that will mean is that the parties will decide who gets to sit in parliament - not the people. For instance, I am in no way a Labour supporter, but I am always happy to see Frank Field elected to parliament. Under a party list system, Frank Field would be way down on the Labour list and would be unlikely to get a seat.
You have similar problems with STV, AV or AV+ - in particular, you will end up with MPs who are not first choice of most people, but MPs who are the least unfancied by most people. What a way to select the person to represent you in government.
To paraphrase Churchill, first past the post is the worst form of electoral system apart from all the others that have been tried. We can not change that system without fundamentally changing our entire parliamentary democracy - and that is a very dangerous thing to do, particularly given the track record of those who will be entrusted with this change.
But worst of all, changing that system will remove that very direct link between people and parliament. It will make government more remote, more detached and more inclined to act in the interest of government rather than the interest of the people or nation.
Is that really what you want?