And MMP would just increase party discipline. I’d rather double or more the number of MPs. This would a) hopefully create a career path outside the party for backbenchers (i.e. something besides committee and cabinet) b) create a larger number of safe seats for all parties meaning MPs would stay longer and become professionals thus weakening the party leaders hold c) allow a closer difference then the 70 000+ people extremes swings in riding size d) strengthen (maybe, because there are more of them) riding associations allowing MPs that are well liked to get re-nominated even if the party disagrees which again would weaken party discipline e) reduce the number of committees a MP sits on from 2-4 to 1 or none, again reducing party discipline and making committees much improved, especially if MPs serve longer and have more experience.

Certainly no Canadian government would ever see a PM thrown out by caucus as Thatcher experienced, or the express wishes of a PM denied when putting a MP back in cabinet (New Zealand, Roger Douglas (Finance Minister) vs. David Lange (PM))

Both Labour and National hate MMP in New Zealand because it prevents government from doing unpopular but needed things. To continue using New Zealand the economic reforms brought in under Sir Roger Douglas starting in 1984 would probably have not been able to pass in MMP and New Zealand would have been a bankrupt Third World country soon after. Or at least, not much better.

Oh, and you ignored STV. Although it’s used only in Malta, the Republic of Ireland, North Ireland, New Zealand local, Australia local, and the Australian senate it is the system the BC citizens group recommended. I don’t favour it, because it screws around with the rules of social science, but it is an option.