Yes, different factors came into play.
First, the will of the people has been overturned three times in Quebec's history. In 1944, the Quebec Liberal Party won more votes than the Union nationale, but the latter won more seats. In 1966, the same thing happened. Finally, in 1998, the Quebec Liberal Party won more votes than the Parti Québécois, but the latter won more seats. Those three reversals of the will of the people brought about a serious questioning of the single member simple plurality system.
That is basically what led our government, after being elected in 2003, to consider reforming the method of voting and suggesting a dual-member proportional system.
The dual candidacy implies that people can be both candidates in a constituency and have their names on a party's list at the same time. At that point, I started to explain, both to voters and parliamentarians, that it meant there would be two different classes of MNAs.
I think that people said, “Well, we didn't know that it would go that far, and we're not sure about what that would mean, and we're not sure that we are in favour of that.”
I think that most people were in favour of a reform, but when I gave details about that reform, it then began to fail. The interest groups that were particularly in favour of a reform, at the end, did not support the government because the formula that we advanced, or the type of reform we proposed, was not their formula or the formula they had in mind.
Since they didn't have the type of reform they had in mind, they decided that instead of supporting the government for another formula, they would not support the reform and instead wait for a reform adapting their formula in the future.