The Conservatives could win 69 fewer seats if an election were held today and Canada used proportional representation (PR) rather than the existing first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral system, according to an analysis of the latest poll results.

That's reason enough not to expect any federal government to switch to what many believe is a fairer system that rewards almost all votes — not just those that go to winning candidates.

Under the current winner-take-all system, "there are legitimate points of view which are not being heard in the legislature when public policy and legislation are being discussed," says Phil Elder, co-chair of the Alberta-based Democratic Renewal Project.

"That's absolutely unacceptable because it closes the door to the democratic participation of a group which has acquired a voting base."

Consider the latest Ipsos Reid poll as an example. The survey, released Friday, shows popular support among decided voters at 43 per cent for the Conservatives, 24 for the NDP, 21 for the Liberals, six for the Bloc Quebecois and four for the Green party.

One analysis based on those results suggests the Conservatives could win a majority 201 seats, the Liberals 53, NDP 48 and four for the Bloc. The Greens would be shut out again. But under proportional representation, which awards at least some seats based on the popular vote, Commons' seating would change considerably.

The Conservatives would shrink to 132 seats and the Liberals would expand to 68 seats. The NDP would soar into Official Opposition with 74 seats, the Bloc would garner 19 and the Greens, which gain dramatically under most PR scenarios, would win 12.

The numbers were produced by a vote calculator sponsored by Fair Vote Canada, a group campaigning for voting system reform.

A migration matrix predicts how any party's supporters in the previous election will vote in the next election. The method assumes a party polling above its previous popular vote will, on balance, keep all of its voters and capture some from other parties, says Fair Vote Canada.

Conversely, a party polling below last election's popular vote will be losing some of its voters to other parties whose polling numbers have improved.

Canada and Britain are among the few liberal democracies still using FPP. Germany, Italy, France, Australia and New Zealand all use different variations of PR, as do dozens of other nations.

Yet the dramatic change in seat totals all but assures that no Canadian government would ever willingly adopt a system that would make winning majorities far more difficult, if not impossible.

Canadians, too, seem disinterested. PR initiatives have been defeated in Ontario, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.

FPP rewards parties with regional strongholds and tends to magnify the parliamentary representation of a broad-based party once it reaches a threshold of national support estimated at 35 per cent.

FPP tends to encourage majority governments, while PR produces more coalitions. FPP also tends to shut out smaller and fledgling minority parties.

Consider:

• The Greens got close to a million votes in the 2008 election but did not win a single seat, while 813,000 votes in Alberta elected 27 Conservatives;

• FPP rewarded the Conservatives with 19 more seats in 2008 even though the party received 200,000 fewer votes than in 2006; and

• Kim Campbell's federal Progressive Conservatives won only two seats in 1993 with 16 per cent of the vote. The Reform Party got 19 per cent and 52 seats, while 13.5 per cent gave the Bloc Quebecois 54 seats. Under PR, Campbell's Conservatives would have won 46 seats.

Barry Kay, an associate professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, who has written extensively on electoral systems, said that if Canada was ever to move toward PR, it would probably be done incrementally.

"For example, having some kind of run-off ballot where you've got to win 50 per cent in the constituency, which is not fundamentally changing the system but reforming it."

He's doubtful, however, whether Canada will ever embrace true PR.

"It's just not in the interest of the parties that are in government."