New ZEALAND uses a Mixed Member Proportional system(MMP), where voters have two votes ( they held a referendum in 1993 to bring this about). The first vote is for a constituency representative, chosen by plurality (most votes) and the second is for a party list ( there is a 5% threshold).
Australia uses a preferential system, where voters mark their preference as 1,2,3,4, etc. Anyone with a majority is elected. If no one gets a majority, the candidate with the least vote is dropped and his second preference is distributed to the others and this continues until a majority is obtained. The Australian Senate, uses it too for the multi-member constituency...each state has 12 seats. Voting is compulsory ( fines up to $170)
France uses a two-ballot system ( ballotage). If no candidate wins a majority, there is a run-off between the two top candidates, a week later.
Germany uses a Mixed Member Proportional system, but in this case, 299 embers of the Bundestag are elected from constituencies, by plurality and 299 are chose from a party list, based on the percentage of votes received. There is a 5% threshold.
Each of these systems better reflect the voters' choice and the government that is formed is based on a majority of support and thus have more credibility and legitimacy. They also ensure a better representation of the cleavages....ethnic, religious, regional, gender etc. in society.
In the Throne Speech, Dec3, the Liberals signalled that electoral reform is on. It will be led by a inexperienced Minister and first-time member of Parliament ( formerly from Afghanistan). I seriously doubt that she has the skills, the knowledge or the political- know how, to navigate the treacherous legislative channel or even to get the Cabinet to consider it to be vital. Of course she may be supported by the PM and that will get her the attention needed in Cabinet but that still leaves the Opposition in the Parliament. Yesterday, 8th Dec. all she did was smile when questioned. That will not cut it.