I have another question for you.
Why opt for preferential voting over proportional voting? Under preferential voting, if I vote for the Green Party candidate, they get five points, and my second choice gets four points, according to the examples you gave earlier. Five versus four isn't much of a difference.
People in other cities told us that preferential voting was a good system when voting for a president or party leader because they were the one who would be establishing the consensus, but that preferential voting didn't allow for adequate representation of diversity in terms of parties or ideas.
Why not just vote for one member and then have three members from the region make up the difference between the seats and the votes received? It wouldn't be based solely on the first choices.