The essence of an electoral system is to represent in government, by some approximation process, the will of the population. To be legitimate, such an approximation must, at the very least, strive to actually reflect the will of every citizen, and to be effective, it must be robust to distortion.
A fundamental problem with our current electoral system, first past the post, is that it does not really try to be representative in any meaningful sense, because it is oppositional by nature. The purpose of first past the post is to elect a winner, not a representative, in each riding, and that winner represents only those voters who supported them in the election. The remaining voters are left disempowered. If first past the post is ever representative, it is only by chance, not by design.
Just as rounding 50ยข to $1 over and over again leads one to precariously believe they have $1,000 in the bank rather than $500, electing representatives in a winner-take-all manner leaves us at great risk of having a non-representative, and therefore ineffective, government. This risk is empirically founded, given the preponderance of majority governments we've seen over the years elected without a majority of the popular vote.
Because of this inherent fragility and its infidelity to the essential purpose of elections, any oppositional system, including first past the post, is illegitimate. Given the existence of alternative proportional models that we know from evidence in other jurisdictions actually succeed in being representative, it is not just a risk to cling to our oppositional model but a wilful transgression against democracy.
Consequently, as a citizen who is deeply concerned with civics, I see it as being imperative that we reform our electoral system and that we institute a legitimate proportionally representative system in its place.
Thank you all very much.