I appreciate your thoughtful response. Let me address each point:

IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) is indeed a form of ranked choice voting, but this doesn't change its fundamental nature as a winner-take-all system. While it allows you to vote sincerely for your first choice without fear of "wasting" your vote, it still results in only one candidate winning per district, meaning many voters remain unrepresented.

The key difference is that in winner-take-all systems like IRV, a significant portion of ballots (often 40-60%) don't elect anyone at all. These votes are effectively discarded. In PR systems, virtually all votes contribute to electing someone who shares the voter's values.

Regarding "party identity" versus independent candidates - this is a common misconception about PR. Systems like Single Transferable Vote (STV) actually make it easier for independents to win seats compared to FPTP. In Ireland, which uses STV, independents regularly win seats. The key is having a reasonable threshold and multi-member districts.

As for local representation, both STV and MMP maintain geographic connection while ensuring proportionality. Under STV, each region has multiple representatives reflecting the diversity of political viewpoints in that area. This provides better regional representation, not worse, as voters are more likely to have at least one MP who shares their values.

The voting reform committee didn't "derail" RCV - they actually studied various systems extensively and recommended PR because it better fulfills the democratic principle that all citizens deserve equal representation. This wasn't dysfunction; it was evidence-based policy making. Trudeau rejected their recommendation because he preferred IRV, thereby breaking his promise to have 2015 be the last election under FPTP.

The fundamental question remains: In a democracy, shouldn't every vote contribute meaningfully to representation, regardless of where you live or who you support? Only PR consistently delivers this basic democratic principle.