Since the system I'm recommending is exactly the same as the current system, with the exception that in the House each MP has a weighted vote instead of the unitary vote, the real drawback of my system is that I'm asking MPs to accept a weighted vote—no longer one man, one vote, but one having a weighting of 0.6 or 0.7 or 1.2, as the case may be. That is a new way of thinking, and a new way of thinking is always difficult to get across.
It actually isn't as bad as it sounds, because if we were to go for an MMP system, your one vote will have become diluted because of the extra 300 people who have just been chucked into the House. Do you follow me? But when you have an MMP system, you would have extra seats that would be used to bring up the votes for each party, so that your individual vote is now diluted. Instead of being 1/334th, it's now 1/625th.
Does that make a lot of difference to you? I don't know, but this is where it gets interesting. The assumption here is that we as a body actually accept the premise that we want proportional representation. If we accept that premise as our starting point; if, without arguing about whether it's good or bad, we accept the idea that we're going to have proportional representation, then there are going to be changes in your effective vote. That's what proportional representation means.