>Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP... FPTP is a winner takes all electoral system. You said Canada h

>Yes? I said those 4 examples use different election styles, not that Canada doesn't use FPTP... FPTP is a winner takes all electoral system. You said Canada had "a parliament where seats are assigned proportionately to votes (there's no winner take all)". >Winner-take-all refers to >>> a legislative body is elected by dividing the jurisdiction into geographic constituencies, each electing exactly one representative. Although this may result in diverse representation due to different political groups making up majorities of different districts, within each district, only one political party or group will be able to elect a candidate[1] This is exactly what Australia and Canada's lower houses have. And looking it up now, France too. >considering the impracticality of implementing a non-winner-take-all system without a significantly larger number of representatives The Australian senate has 76 senators. The Australian house of Reps has 151 members. The Australian senate elected with a non-winner-take-all system. The Australian house of reps is elected via a winner-take-all system. >If we give more seats and apply proportionate seating this is functionally equivalent to just dividing the electorate further and using winner-take-all. It is not. To illustrate: imagine a country of 1 million where instead of left-wing and right-wing parties they have left-hand and right-hand parties. So there everyone votes for the right-hand party except for the 10% of people who are left-handed. As handedness is fairly evenly distributed, in a single member electorate system it would be basically impossible for the lefties to take a single seat. So you'd expect the parliament to be 100% right-hand party no matter if it comprised a single member or 10,000. However with a proportional system (e.g. SLV) with electorates of 10 or more you could expect the parliament to roughly reflect the 90/10 split. We see this in the real world, where places with single member seats (e.g. Canada, France, Australia lower house) have worse parliamentary diversity than those with multi member seats (e.g. Germany, Australia upper house). >And if this is why you're throwing my comment out the window I think you missed the entire point and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith here. As you haven't made it very clear at all, what is your point?