First, I find it ironic that anyone would say that they don't like the first-past-the-post system. It produces an artificial majority, and the Liberal government won under the first-past-the-post system, and therefore it's legitimate without a national consensus to change the voting system. I see a logical contradiction there and I have a lot of problems with it.
Second, what is this? People who have not focused their minds on it, who have not seen the concrete proposals will have an amorphous opinion. People change their minds if and when a specific proposal comes forward, and they deserve to have that. You have to have the proposal and the debate. It's in the book. The Lortie commission found, depending on how you ask the question, that people either like first past the post or they don't. There's no such thing as Canadian public opinion that's settled and crystalized on this until there's a specific proposal and until there's a referendum.
Again, take a look at what happened in the Quebec round, at what happened in the United Kingdom with constitutional change. I think the modern morality of consent is whether there are large “C” constitutional changes to the formal text of the Constitution, or whether they are effectively constitutional changes changing the voting system we've used for a century or more. Then, the morality of consent, the expectation, I think, of democratically minded Canadians is that Canadians will get a voice, and Canadians will get not just a public opinion poll voice, but they will actually get a vote that counts.
People want to make a vote that counts; that's the whole theme of this. Well, then, people should have a vote that counts on whether you change the system.