Right.
Back when the British Columbia one, the former of the two, was under way, I remember writing on the subject of the way the referendum had been structured and the difficulty of essentially a first-past-the-post choice on something for which multiple options were available. There was certainly strategic voting in that referendum. The leaders of the Green and the NDP parties, for example, both voted against the STV model because they favoured MMP and thought they'd have a second kick at the cat if they just rejected the proposal.
An alternative model used in New Zealand put multiple models before the people, and that did result in a change to the system. I think there's some evidence that the initial referendum in New Zealand was also designed to produce a different result, but it was unsuccessful, and the change did occur.
What do you think of that kind of model?