Yes. It's different.
In a majority system, someone who has the majority of the votes wins the seat. But here, we're not talking about a majority but proportional representation. Suppose there are 100 seats and the party wins 40% of the votes, that's 40 seats. The results obtained by the candidates in the ridings will be measured and ranked in order of importance. The results 45, 44, 43, 42 or 25, 22, 29 will be indicated by order of importance, and the candidates who obtained them will get a seat.
I consulted some people, but to develop this I mainly used members of my family. I didn't have time to go into this in more detail. The fault in this model is that a candidate from a smaller party could get 29% of the votes, for example, for a better performance. Ultimately, a party could end up with 2% of the votes or something like that. A threshold needs to be established to prevent this.
That's why I propose that, in the formula, we start with the smallest party for granting seats and then move to the party that came second in terms of the number of seats or results obtained. The purpose is to obtain a better match. What has been given to one party couldn't be given to another. There are several formulas to consider with this.
The other formula involves alternating, meaning giving one seat to one party, then one seat to another, and so on. It's based on performance. The ridings remain the same, but the list is created using the public's expression based on the number of votes. Of course, the more votes a candidate gets in a riding, the more chance that candidate has of winning it.