Q.For 4 given wishes (personal accountability / minority representation / vote-seat proportionality / candidate-over-party choice), state whether FPTP or PR suits better.

Each of the four wishes favours a different feature that only one of the two systems reliably provides. …

Taking each wish in turn:

1. People should know who their representative is, to hold them personally accountable. FPTP is built exactly for this — one constituency, one elected representative, a name voters can point to and hold responsible. PR, especially with a large multi-member or national constituency and party-list seats, does not guarantee any single MP is tied to any one locality — so FPTP suits this wish better.
2. Small linguistic minorities spread all over the country should get fair representation. A minority that is a small fraction in every single constituency will almost never win a seat under FPTP, however large its total national numbers are. Under PR, especially with the whole country as one constituency, that same minority's national vote share can clear the seat threshold and win real representation. PR suits this wish better.
3. There should be no discrepancy between votes and seats for different parties. This is the defining strength of PR by design — seat shares are made to match vote shares as closely as possible. FPTP, by contrast, routinely produces exactly this discrepancy (as the 1984 election shows starkly). PR suits this wish better. …