As with any Proportional Representation system, there are inevitably some disadvantages to the PFPTP ProFirst proposal:
But compared with the current - clearly unrepresentative - First-Past-The-Post system, these concerns seem relatively unimportant when set against the very obvious benefits offered by PFPTP ProFirst. These stem from its speed of obtaining a transparently proportional result, at minimal extra cost and far greater proportionality, when compared with the AV (Alternative Vote) system.
Reservations expressed in the 2005 Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System:
Despite the fact that electronic voting in the House had already been under consideration, the 2005 Jenkins Report ignored the possibility and noted, rather condescendingly, that "there is another system operating entirely on existing constituencies ... which has been advocated by a number of those providing us with written submissions. It is what might be called the 'weighted vote member system'. Members would be elected exactly as now, but where their party was under-represented nationally this would be corrected by giving them an additional voting strength in the division lobbies of the House of Commons .... Whether they would carry these numbers round their necks or on their backs, rather like prize bulls at an agricultural show, is not clear, but what is clear is that there would be great problems if one of these vote-heavy beasts were to find himself in a lobby different from his party leader and whips. ... Therefore, while we respect the ingenuity and conviction with which this weighted vote solution has been put forward, we think that it would arouse more mockery than enthusiasm and be incompatible with the practical working of a parliament."