I think there are a lot of PR countries that probably do have it right. I know one that's cited quite a bit is New Zealand. It's compared a lot to Canada, because we're both Westminster systems and stuff like that. At the same time, they have a couple of mechanisms that we don't have.
There, it was really ironic. The governor general of the day, recognizing that they were changing to a PR system and that they were going to have minority parliaments, did some research and then came to the conclusion that he would assess whether or not the parties had sufficient members, or a coalition, to control Parliament. Rather than following the system that we do now, that they did in the past, all of a sudden he took it upon himself...which is really bizarre. I can't imagine we would ever allow our Governor General to take on such a political action.
Since they have adopted PR, from that point forward, their governor general receives proposals from the parties as to which one can control the parliament, and they proceed on from there. As well, they do allow the parliament to continue even when there is the loss of a confidence vote, which we don't have. Our prime ministers get to dissolve Parliament at that point. Also, the New Zealanders have a three-year life cycle for their parliament. That sort of negates the need for voting down a government, except in the most dire circumstance. It also means that the party in power somewhat restricts themselves in the measures they take, because they know they're facing the electorate fairly soon afterwards.
There are quite a few differences between their system and ours as to how it has evolved since they adopted proportional representation.