I like the New Zealand model in which the initial reform gave voters more than a yes/no option. I like that.
What I like more about New Zealand is that they followed it up with several other referenda to see if people actually like the change now that they've used it. In New Zealand they've consistently said that they support the change and they're liking it more over time.
There was a second question involved in that. It asked whether, if you do want change, what you would like to revert to. The single-member plurality system is the choice. They said that if they were going to change again, they wanted to go back to the old way.
My main problem with what happened in British Columbia and Ontario—and this is not reflected simply by just endorsing New Zealand—is the requirement for a supermajority. This is a question that I think Canadians often ask in any number of contexts on questions that are put to referenda. How much of a majority is enough? Is 58% enough? I would have said so, and in that case both British Columbia and Ontario would have probably changed their electoral systems had that threshold been okay.
Certianly part of the question is how you ask the question, but the other question is how much of a majority you need. That's an open question that ought to be subject to political debate in each context where the public is going to be asked a question like that.