You claim I’m childish for pointing out the anti-democratic nature of FPTP, but it’s not about labelling people as “extremists” - it’s about identifying principles that fundamentally contradict democracy, I was only using your language. So let me address your question directly: No, the 40% of New Zealanders who voted to keep FPTP weren’t extremists. But the more telling statistic is that 60% preferred to keep MMP after experiencing both systems, suggesting that when people actually experience proportional representation, most come to prefer it over FPTP.

Your accountability argument for FPTP completely falls apart under scrutiny. You claim that “the Liberals own their record” under FPTP, but when a party forms government with just 35-40% of the vote, they don’t truly represent the majority of citizens. How is it accountability when the Ontario PCs can implement policies opposed by 57% of voters? That’s not accountability - it’s minority rule masquerading as majority mandate.

The idea that voters can simply “coalesce” around the party best positioned to defeat an unpopular government shows how FPTP forces a toxic dynamic where citizens must vote strategically against what they fear rather than for what they want. This strategic voting necessity undermines the very democratic expression you claim FPTP promotes. In PR systems, voters can express their actual preferences without fear of “wasting” their vote.

Your argument about “competing values” between democracy and effective governance creates a false dichotomy that isn’t supported by evidence. Countries using PR systems consistently demonstrate that representative democracy and effective governance are compatible. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all implement comprehensive, stable policy programs under PR systems. In fact, policies in these countries tend to have greater longevity and stability precisely because they’re built on broader consensus rather than see-sawing between opposite extremes with each election cycle.

The “policy lurch” under FPTP systems wastes billions in abandoned initiatives every time government changes hands. Look at Ontario’s energy policy over the last few decades - a perfect example of how successive governments with minority support completely reverse course, creating costly inefficiencies and long-term planning disasters. PR systems tend to produce more stable policy environments because radical changes require genuine majority support.

Your argument about coalitions and accountability also fails to acknowledge how FPTP distorts political incentives. In our current system, parties only need to appeal to voters in swing ridings, ignoring safe seats entirely. This creates geographical inequalities where some citizens’ votes matter more than others depending solely on where they live. Meanwhile, in rural areas like Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had their votes completely discarded in the last election. Is that accountability?

The mathematical superiority of PR is undeniable. PR systems consistently outperform FPTP on metrics like the Gallagher Index, which measures the proportionality of electoral outcomes. This isn’t just theoretical - it means millions of real voters who cast ballots under FPTP essentially have no representation at all. I repeat my central question: How can you justify a system that systematically discards so many votes?

You argue that FPTP creates “clear” accountability, but the reality is that it often creates false majorities that implement policies the majority of voters opposed. In PR systems, coalitions must represent majority viewpoints to form government and pass legislation. This means policies generally have broader support across the population. When controversial legislation passes in a PR system, it typically has genuine majority support rather than being imposed by a minority-supported government.

If your concern is truly extremism, consider that STV and other ranked ballot systems (forms of PR) actually address this better than FPTP. They ensure candidates must have broader appeal to win, unlike FPTP where candidates can win with small pluralities in crowded fields. This is precisely why electoral reform advocates often support these systems - they combine proportionality with incentives for moderation and consensus-building.

The evidence from countries using PR supports the view that proportional representation is fundamentally more democratic than FPTP and produces better governance outcomes for citizens. Rather than fearing what might happen if everyone’s vote counted equally, we should embrace a system that ensures exactly that - because a democracy where millions of votes are systematically discarded is no true democracy at all.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that the “effectiveness” of majority governments formed with minority support outweighs the democratic deficit inherent in FPTP. But this premise fails on two counts: first, it assumes FPTP actually delivers more effective governance (which international evidence contradicts), and second, it dismisses the fundamental democratic principle that representation should match voting patterns as merely one value among many rather than a core requirement of democratic legitimacy.

What I find most troubling in your position is the willingness to accept the disenfranchisement of millions of voters based on hypothetical governance concerns that aren’t supported by evidence. The purpose of an electoral system is to provide representation to constituents, not to deny representation. If we live in a democracy, we are deserving and entitled to representation in government. If you have an issue with that, then your issue is with democracy itself, not with PR.