My colleague said something quite interesting: it changes nothing. It just goes about things in a different way. If that is the case, why change?
If it ain't broke, don't mend it.
My thinking is slightly different.
I am not looking for mathematical precision. Are people looking for mathematical precision. Some of them yes, because it would be in their interest. When I use the word “rationalize”, I do not mean that we need to look only at the calculations. We also have to consider human psychology, certain political data, and people's political knowledge. The election result still has to be intuitive enough to be accepted.
Everything does not have to be about complicated political mathematics that perhaps 1% of the population will understand. The result really has to correspond to the will of the majority. In that sense, the current plurality system actually works well most of the time, but it has to be corrected at its margins. It does not have to be changed completely, just corrected at the margins while keeping what is relatively well accepted and making sure that the parts of the situation that are a little more unfortunate are made less so. It is not a matter of changing everything.