No, they are inherently different.

Full representation empowers the voters -- period.

Winner-take-all empowers the voters with just about half that amount.

When a decision is made by a government, it really matters if a majority of the voters support that (Proportional Representation) or if a minority of the voters support that (winner-take-all).

Want an example?

Full Representation: About 99% of the voters are represented directly through their own votes.

A majority decision by the government, say 60% is near 59% supported by all voters. [.99 x .6 = about 59%]

Winner-take-all: About 60% of the voters are represented directly through their own votes.

A majority decision by the government, say 60% is supported by 36% of all voters. [.6 x .6 = 36 %]

--

Full Representation: Majority Rule!

Winner-take-all: Majority-of-the-Majority Rule!

You already know this, Dave. One system is an actual democracy, the other system if deeply flawed.

"Two very different ideas are usually confounded under the name democracy. The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practiced is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favor of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, to the complete disfranchisement of minorities."

—John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, 1861