I don't think it's a legitimate argument to say "I don't want the Communist or Christian Heritage party represented." Disagreeing with a political viewpoint does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of representation in the political process.
Personally, I didn't want Mike Harris but enough people voted him in. Twice, even. And more people voted against his party the second time around than voted against it the first time and he still got a second majority. I don't see how that's democratic at all. Do you remember Frank McKenna winning ALL of the seats in NB with something like 50-60 per cent of the popular vote? In the past 20 years, we've had two premiers elected (in BC and Quebec) who received fewer total votes (barely, but still) than their opponent. This with first past the post.
I'm going to assume that the same thinking that doesn't want the Marijuana and Natural Law parties represented would also not welcome the presence of the Bloc Quebecois at the federal level. In the 1993 federal election, the PC party got 16 per cent of the vote and only two seats. The NDP got 7 per cent of the vote and nine seats -- less than half the total Conservative vote yet more than triple the number of seats. In that same election, the Bloc Quebecois came out as the official opposition with only 14 per cent of the overall vote. The BQ got fewer votes than the Conservatives yet they moved into Stornoway while the Tories were relegated to non-party status. I realize I'm using federal comparisons and the referendum is for provincial change, but it's the same system.
If we believe in the process of democracy, that majority rules with representation from minorities then we have to find a better system than the one we have now. I just don't see how we can deny representation to parties who receive votes -- the question is at what threshold?
I'm more concerned with the process of how those party lists will get put together than with hearing from more and varied voices in Parliament.
And why are there two threads on this same topic?