I think electing representative by happenstance of geography is great, because it gives individual competent people with a strong local implantation independence from central parties organisation. We had a couple of those in the recent legislative elections in France where a lot of deputy could be reelected based on their local power base despite their party getting beaten down badly in the general presidential elections.
In the 21st century, it seems arbitrary to elect representatives by happenstance of geography.
Also, there is the problem that currently we combine a bunch of skills into one job called “politician”:
Raising money
Hiring staff
Campaigning (giving speeches, appearing in commercials)
Voting (and deciding which way to vote)
Drafting legislation (and understanding legislation)
And then we select who wins mostly based on 4, with a dash of 2 and 3, with 1 being a “you must be this successful to compete” barrier.
Parties help de-couple those skills, so the people who campaign can pick a Party based on 4, and focus on 3, and let the Party handle 1, 2, and 5.
I think electing representative by happenstance of geography is great, because it gives individual competent people with a strong local implantation independence from central parties organisation. We had a couple of those in the recent legislative elections in France where a lot of deputy could be reelected based on their local power base despite their party getting beaten down badly in the general presidential elections.