I'm inclined to agree with my colleague Dr. Massicotte that these questions are distinct, but I also think they are linked.
In the literature on party and campaign finance internationally, most countries do have some form of public financing. It's broadly seen to be a good thing, because the political party is a key institution linking representative institutions and the voting public. I will happily own to being a fan of the per-vote subsidy. It struck me as a democratic way of doing party financing. It also struck me as a way of being able to tell people who thought their votes were wasted because they weren't necessarily voting for the winner that their vote was actually contributing to something.
I think it would be worthwhile to re-engage in this kind of discussion about what kind of public financing the parties need. The context around the past way we did it is less than sparkling, but I do think it's worth having a discussion. I know I have colleagues who disagree with me because they don't necessarily like either the per-vote subsidy or the idea of public financing, but I would broadly endorse it as a good thing.