Yes, it is different in Proportional voting.

When a group of people is unhappy with a party, they form their own party.

When a member of parliament is unhappy with their party, then they split off from that party, keeping the seat.

Parties are like buses. Who drives the bus is up to who wants to be driven in that bus.

Is it a bit chaotic? In general, No. But there are times when folks want to switch buses or when folks want to switch drivers and that can take a minute. All in all, the voters are the empowered folks.

The House of Representatives is the embodiment of the power of the voters. All is based on the voters. The parties are completely unimportant and the voters will let a party die and rot in hell when the party is not aligned with the voters.

Parties come and go. The good ones stick around, and even the good ones have to adjust themselves because they have to listen to the voters.

--

I understand that an individual cannot get done what they want in a party. It is a group experience.

Yet when there are no alternatives for that individual, then we have a situation that sucks.

If there were twelve parties in Canada, and not winner-take-all, I am sure you would have found your party with relative ease, Dave.

That does not mean you would have ended up being able to affect more in Canada than what you have been able to accomplish today (we are talking politics after all), but you would have found a political home that is a better fit than what exists today.

--

What I understand from Scandinavian parties is that they can agree to alliances. That is mean. If the parties block the freedom to negotiate after the elections because they already negotiated before the elections, then the voters are not fully in control.

During the last elections, however, I saw that Swedish parties gave up on this and the voters are then more fully in control.