I began by saying that the key word in this discussion was “contingency”. I would say that in response to your question.
Local representation is important. As was just described, the Irish case is a great example of local representation. Because the geographical constituencies are reasonably small, they sacrifice proportionality. Most experts would suggest that in order to have true proportionality, you need about five representatives per district. If you have fewer than that, you give up some proportionality. In Ireland they clearly say, “We like the fact that there's local representation and we're willing to give up some of the proportionality.” That's what I was referring to when I meant trade-offs.
When the Ontario citizens' assembly members mocked up an STV model for Ontario, they realized quickly that if they wanted proportionality, which is something they desired, either the ridings would have to be enormous or the legislature would have to be increased significantly. Those trade-offs were the things they played with. I'm not suggesting that's the domain of this conversation. I said to myself I didn't want to get into the mechanics here today, but in answer to your question, that's the way it sits.