Rich Constituencies

The vocabulary here applies to the British House of Commons, but the idea is equally applicable for all elected chambers.

Each Member is elected with a certain majority. In the Uk this is typically between 2 and 10,000. This majority is the number of votes he or she or it (new pronoun: 'horseshit') can spend on Bills during the entire legislative year. This way, Members who represent bedrock 1-party areas such as Scotland and Wales will no longer be ignored; in fact they will become the 'richest' & have more sway than Members who've snuck into undecided suburban constituencies by splitting a vote. While the government in power is still determined by the extremely stable First Past the Post system (by number of members), the weight of voting follows the intuitively fairer geometry of Proportional Representation.

In practice, Whips will still control the overall strategy of voting patterns while backbenchers (junior members) will be able to husband more carefully their voting resources for tactical purposes, saving a big burst for an issue they care more deeply about.

Equally, the Opposition could throw itself on the grenade of stopping a Government bill (say, Hunting or the Lords) at the price of fatally weakeningitself for the rest of the Parliament. A price they would probably pay, once or twice a decade, in my opinion. This also applies to the third party (Lib Dems).

Thirdly, it'll soak up some of our legislators' energy & give politics a whole new level of complexity. Who knows, maybe Members could even collect power-ups for every job created in their constituency...