I like the system as it is. At least we get stable governments with actual policies, which is something that usually doesn't with proportional representation systems.
That's absolutely untrue. In fact, first-past-the-post causes more instability. People forget the example of Germany (proportional and far more stable than ours), but also like to overlook what FPTP produces:
1) FPTP favour regionally-concentrated parties and penalizes parties that have significant nationwide support but do not dominate any specific geographic region. What you get as a result of this is parties, that address regional concerns more than nationwide ones, and this pits the different regions against each other politically. It therefore is a threat to national unity. Evidence?
A) Look at the rise of the Bloc Quebecois in Canada - small % of total votes but all in one province; at one point this effect was strong enough to made them the official opposition.
B) Look at the UK - there has been a similar regional fracturing there, and now the UK is threatened by a Scottish separatist party - one which dominates Scotland's seats and is the third largest party in terms of seats despite not getting even 5% of the UK total vote.
C) Look at the USA - It should be obvious that even the states that are "safe" for either the Democrats or Republicans are not totally for one or the other party in actual votes; yet time and time again, a state gets "swept" because it is winner-takes-all and not apportioned out by vote percentage.
The plain fact is, it is not producing stability and encourages the kind of divisive struggles that blow countries to pieces.
2) If it is claimed that the object is to represent each area (riding) rather than create a parliament representing the whole nation, then FPTP fails at that too: most MP's do not even represent a majority of votes in their own area. Given this fact, a majority of voters have their vote wasted - they are not represented in parliament. It forces voters to vote strategically, to deny seats to their most hated opponents, rather than freely choose the party or candidate that best suits their beliefs. Voters are not fools - they know the mechanics of how it works, so the question for many is whether to be defeated by their own ideals, or to be a cynic and vote for the best way to harm a foe.
FPTP allows one party to take a minority of votes and use that to trample over everybody with unchecked power for a few years. It is supported by parties who think they can leverage minority support into absolute power, and force the majority of the population to eat shit.
All they need is to just barely be ahead in each of the 338 individual races; you can have a so-called "majority government" with as little as 30% of the vote, depending on how it breaks. Would you deserve to hold power alone? Nope. Would you have most people agreeing with what you do? Nope. Would your government start out with most voters disgruntled, and only go downhill from there? Yes.
So, maybe you mean "decisive" not "stable". And maybe you mean governments with "policies formed by one party alone" - for there is nothing stopping policies from forming in other countries, except there the parties have to have a majority of voters supporting their ideas. Whether that takes one or more than one party to get there, at least they do not routinely assume that a government cannot simply go against the majority of citizens' wishes and get away with it.
Like I said, FPTP is the system that appeals to those parties who dream of holding unchecked dictatorial power, but who are so delusional they never imagine themselves losing it.
EDIT: And you know, It's getting pretty far off from the OP's purpose, now that I read that again, so I'll try to say no more.
