DEMOCRACY MEANS GOVERNMENTS HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.
That is the idea of a social contract (sort of) and not Democracy.
FPTP is closer to true democracy than any form of PR.
Democracy was a way for Greek Athenian property owners and those with vested interest in the state to elect technocrats and ordinary citizens into official posts. The voters then had to fight in the wars they started as soldiers (literally and figuratively) and paid consequences if they voted wrongly. Therefore, the voting elite had tremendous burden to vote carefully. So it really wasn't about electing a government so much as it was everyone being responsible to everyone else with their votes.
Modern democracy on the other hand, gives suffrage to often uneducated and easily manipulated masses (who elected such leaders as Hitler and Trump into power). The masses are then excused from bad choices "because it's the elected's fault!", and it is hardly a good system. PR is worse than FPTP because it further takes merit out of the equation and replaces it with a numbers game.
We are facing a crisis of identity as a nation and a generation of adults, and PR will make things worse. This should hardly be time for electoral reform, but rather governance reform.
Depose? Deadlock ? No. Most places with PR work far more smoothly than here in Canada.
PR has failed in Albania and Italy. It has also created slow-moving legislation in Pre-War Germany and, to some extent, modern Germany. The former due to corruption and the latter due to fractured franchising. In New Zealand, the "patron saint" of PR-styled government, there are specific tactics used by smaller parties to gain power at the cost of the bigger parties which has caused more than a few scoffs among the population. In voting situations where an issue boils down to one or two votes, the underhang or overhang seats can result in massive power being vested in the smallest political parties, which puts power into even smaller entities and defeats the purpose of PR fixing FPTP minority governance in entirety. Therefore, PR doesn't fix the biggest problem people have with FPTP (minority governance) but merely moves it around into another form(tactical voting). Most of the time, politicians will be focused on strategising seat maximization rather than trying to deliver a political platform. This is particularly useful for political parties who often pander to large numbers of lower- and lower-middle-class voters and wreaks havoc for conservative (upper-class) and liberals (propertied bourgeois).
New Zealand has a very different agenda (economy first) than Canada (diplomacy first). It has a smaller land mass, less primary industries, and a homogenous geopolitical climate. Your support of FTPT or PR should be based on your preference of elitism (FPTP) or Mass Franchising (Any form of PR), and not "case study" of another country.
The elite wants things to go back to just 2 political choices, and even the media which hates complexity and love the lazy simple tale they can tell in each election. That's why FPTP has lasted this long.
But it's not true to the way people think, the real political culture where "left" and "right" just don't cut it anymore.
Elitism is quick and efficient, but sacrifices humanity and compassion to achieve results. The US is an oligarchic plutocracy that has a powerhouse economy, a massive military, and competitive spirits among its population. The lack of social stability and welfare, while driving crime up, also force people to be more industrious and hardworking to make ends meet. Socialist-Capitalist states like Canada and France (Which had a strike some time ago when work-hour minimum was raised from 20-hours to 30 hours (or some arbitrarily low number)) tend to be less productive more laidback.
However, elitism is seldom popular. After all, elites lack numerical superiority.
BC will likely switch to PR because the elite ruling class aren't here. We have almost no old-money lineages in BC and most of them live back East. As such, we never fostered elitist culture here and is probably why we clamour for PR.
I'm not vouching for either system, but merely pointing out that FPTP isn't all that bad, and that PR isn't really going solve the problems any quicker. People are growing convinced that FPTP is bad but fail to see the vice and virtue of BOTH systems.
Our problem really isn't electoral reform. Our problem is that we repeatedly elect losers into power, and subsequently agree with them.
