The debate about the advantages and disadvantages of single-member and multimember districts overlaps, to a large extent, with the debate over plurality or majority systems and proportional representation systems. This is because plurality and majority systems usually employ single-member districts, and proportional representation systems use multimember districts. This discussion will focus solely on the strengths and weaknesses of single-member districts.

Advantages of Single-Member Districts

Supporters cite several advantages, namely that single-member districts:

• provide voters with strong constituency representation because each voter has a single, easily identifiable, district representative;
• encourage constituency service by providing voters with an easily identifiable "ombudsman";
• maximise accountability because a single representative can be held responsible and can be re-elected or defeated in the next election;
• ensure geographic representation.

Disadvantages of Single-Member Districts

In citing disadvantages, critics point out that single-member districts:

• must be redrawn on a regular basis to maintain populations of relatively equal size;
• are usually artificial geographic entities whose boundaries do not delineate clearly identifiable communities, and as a consequence, the entities have no particular relevance to citizens;
• because of their tendency to over-represent the majority party and under-represent other parties, cannot produce proportional representation for political parties.

Conclusion

The strengths of single-member districts rest in the close ties between representatives and constituents, the accountability of representatives to the voters, and constituency service. Because single-member districts are used in conjunction with plurality or majority voting rules, they are also said to foster strong and stable government.