I'm a bit miffed that I'm going to have to vote in some kind of proportional or runoff-voting system next election, because it's 'better'.
Better is a subjective term, and you can construct any scenario to support whatever you like as being 'better'. It's just a whole pile of unspoken assumptions, like you are supposed to be contented with whoever is second or third best, missing that second or third is just as conditional upon who is running as is first. Put two people on one side and one on another, and one of the two will very likely win. Add or remove someone and everything swaps about heavily.
I liked the mix of supporting centerists while allowing for some extremists of FPTP. Here it didn't seem to keep people from changing parties, and if you don't rig the election by rigging districts, allowed for change. You can damn well rig districts under IRV systems, and I'm not convinced that pure porportional systems would result in functioning government. Complicated hybrid systems designed to please everyone could work better, but at some point it just strikes me as being too arbritrary.
And yes, I do want to see a return of the per-vote subsidy, to support the broad-base extremists like the greens more.
Enough of that. I just don't believe that my voice is better heard being told that my third-choice was elected, than it was with my vote counting as a +1 for a losing candidate.