Canada

That is my favourite kind of question! Unfortunately, social sciences are pretty hard to demonstrate causation. (Any research would involve so many subjective decisions, e.g., Turkey is nominally a PR country but I imagine İmamoğlu and others would uhhh, have strong disagreements with that. Do you count poorer countries with a complicated recent history? If we restrict too much the sample size becomes negligible etc.)

But, after having doorknocked and bugged friends to do so as well for proportional representation in 2015, I've watched what's happened across the world since and it's spooked the shit out of me. In part, what I've seen are the causal mechanisms, which I think are twofold:

1. FPTP disincentives fringe/extreme parties. Think back to the thankfully short lived PPC here. That's not to say they can't take hold, look at Reform UK or the Republicans. But, in both cases, it took the collapse or infiltration of an existing mainstream party, which thankfully, is pretty rare. As much as I dislike and disagree with Polievre, few reasonably informed Canadians would put him or the Conservatives in the same bucket as the far Right parties in Europe/America.

2. In recent, more polarized years, it's been harder for parties to compromise to pass significant legislation, which has resulted in surprising stagnation and papering over problems. As a joky but illustrative example, in Germany, the trains no longer run on time! (Seriously, if you've been to Germany 20 years ago, you'll know what a bizarre thing that is to say. It'd be like basketball replacing hockey here.) But that inability to pass bold, significant legislation means problems don't get addressed and people don't see much significant change in their lives.

Our system has a lot of faults. But in my eyes, the biggest strength is that a government with a majority can really do things as there are fewer checks and balances. Think back to how effective and targeted CERB was, proportionally, we spent a fraction of what the US did but it helped people who really needed it and quite well. Despite being interrupted by a pandemic and then fighting off challenges to his leadership, Trudeau still started us on a path to subsidized childcare (absolute game changer if we can get that over the finish line) dental and pharmacare. BUT, for all that strength, it also means we are much more susceptible to disastrous outcomes with a bad government.

It’s either fully proportional or its not.

What, why? All but 20% are proportional, the same coalition and minority governments exist etc. I get you don't like the outcome but declaring it doesn't count despite functionally being PR is a weird position.

it goes hand and hand with your ban from !fairvote@lemmy.ca for your dismissive and disrespectful conduct.

Ahhhh, lol. I politely tried to excuse myself but someone from there just wanted to come with increasingly silly and somewhat hysterical "points." I don't think the onus is on me to pretend everything being said is reasonable. (If memory serves, someone had read so little about the topic that they called me racist for noting that the Nordic states are homogenous countries, as opposed to say, Canada with the Quebecois/Anglo divide, or Iraq with the Shia, Sunni and Kurd groups.) Although, dang, I wish I could see that thread because some of the stuff OP ended up trying to say was legitimately hysterical. Though I guess I appreciate the ban happened after I said that I said the discussion had reached an impass, that's at least respectful.

disrespectful conduct.

To be clear, accusing me of being on the side of a mass murderer like Mugabe is fine and respectful but saying you don't seem to read about the real world isn't? That's certainly... A choice.

That’s certainly strawmanning my position

Your "position" is just statements, repeating the same unproven desires that PR leads to "real progress on issues, friendly compromise and collaboration" when time and time again, that's shown not to be the case which is the fundamental problem with PR. I've used multiple examples that show this has not been the case. All you've done is say examples don't count for specious reasons (somehow, only 80% PR means fundamentally different mechanics and a coalition government, the typical outcome of PR means the Kickl isn't a problem) and then repeat the same hopes for PR. Waving away all the real world examples that you dislike without any particularly good reasons is not a way to demonstrate that you are correct.

What are the differences between statements and points? Consider someone who said capitalism was the best because it delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. And then you went and pointed out those aren't entirely true using facts, examples etc and their response was "no, those countries have welfare so they aren't real capitalism" and then just kept repeating that capitalism delivered the highest living standards and the most freedom for people. In this case too, those are just unproved statements that someone wants to be true without evidence being given.