THE MYTH OF PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Let's put an end to the myth of Proportionate Representation, shall we?
In John Pepall's book AGAINST REFORM he correctly states three very important facts about PR in regards to Canada:
1. PR means endless Coalition or Minority governments, all of which under Westminster Parliamentary systems are either unstable or frequently shifting their priorities.
2. Canadians have repeatedly indicated they don't like Coalition and Minority governments because...
3. Coalition and Minority governments do not have any one party clearly responsible or to blame or accountable and therefore in every nation where they exist budgets are completely out of control.

If you think Harper's wasting of the $100 Billion Chretien/Martin paid off the debt was bad.  If you think Harper's further adding of $70 Billion to the debt through his nepotistic Canada Action Plan vote buying scheme was bad.
If you think Justin's $50 Billion investment in infrastructure that stimulated a stagnant economy was bad.
THEN imagine doing that PLUS trying to appease the additional demands of your coalition partners!!

The 4th reason Mr. Pepall gives against reform on all counts is that there's no way a political party can institute a political system reform without trying to put in, or exclude, a measure that benefits or hurts it.  None.  It's ridiculous to even expect that.

And the 5th reason Mr. Pepall gives against such reforms is that Canada is at the top of International Stability lists, Democratic Responsibility lists and at the bottom of Corruption Indexes.  In short, the system we have has ensured a stable, functioning and responsible democracy for 150 plus years so anyone wanting to change that is clearly trying to de-stablize us.

But let's pretend for a minute that a consensus is possible about PR.  That of the dozen or so possible systems out there, a majority of Canadians, or even Canadian politicians, could agree on one system.  There's no evidence of this being the case, and even when PR referendums have passed in places like BC no province has instituted one because none can get consensus on which method to adopt [see: item 4 for the reason why], but let's pretend that consensus on a Proportionate Representation system has occurred.

And because this is about myths, let's pretend a Regional Proportionate Representation system was in place, then, as pollster and the mind behind 338Canada.com, Philippe J. Fournier worked out in a recent article for MacLeans....

Under First Past The Post, right now the Liberals and Conservatives would each get around 132 seats.  They'd then need the NDP's 33 seats, the Greens 4 and the Bloq's 36 to either support or abstain from defeating them.

Under PPR, right now we'd see a minority government under Andrew Scheer with 112 seats, the Liberals would have 109, the NDP would have 61, the Bloq 23 and the Greens 32.  We'd have pretty much the same situation in government where 1 of the 2 main parties would need the smaller parties to either support or abstain from defeating them, but no one in Canada would have an MP that they elected or could turn to for help, and the country would never have a hope of having one party accountable for the decisions of the Government because this sort of mess would happen every damn election.

But at least the NDP and the Greens would have more seats - so that would make it all worth while, right?

Barf! 
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-338canada-projection-if-proportional-representation-was-real/