(No choice; 01-03; p.3)

To preclude some oversimplifying reasoning, more remarks are needed: firstly, the number of seats shall remain the same, so the number of districts doubled; secondly, MPs shall only be obliged to follow their conscience as is today; thirdly, the five-percent-hurdle, banning parties below this level from parliament, shall remain as well.

The so achieved smaller election districts might ease relations between the elected and electorate - it is a difference e.g. whether a Parliamentarian of the Bundestag has to see to the interests of an average of 200 000 or 100 000 people of his district. Furthermore, there would be a firm and specified accountability to a district for every MP.
Besides, differences in size of the districts were levelled even more: an allowed abbreviation of 25% from average would in case of the Bundestag so mean not 50 000 more or less people to represent, but only 25 000.
Finally, the five-percent-clause would provide for a sustained role of parties: sometimes it is an advantage to know that "one's" MP does stand for a certain political wing as may become obvious in decisions about, say genetic engineering; fighting for the interests of "one's" clientele is indeed not the exclusive guide-line in many decisions.

In the longer run, the influence of parties may perhaps be reduced to the degree which is seen as appropriate in Germany's constitution, the Basic Law: participation in the process of political decision-finding. Abolition of the second vote would surely be more effective in overcoming the stagnation in law-making and other areas much complained about.
- Think, e.g. of decisions in the Bundesrat, Germany's Länder chamber, or latest vacancy fillings made in public broadcast companies where professional skills seem rather off the point but loyalty to a party the overall counting criterion. (read on here)