1. Rachel wants to ensure that large and unrepresented or underrepresented groups in Canada are actually represented in Parliament. Suppose that there is a political party out there with 0.33% support of the electorate. That should (assuming rounding) qualify them for one seat in a Parliament of 300 (1 our of every 300 people supports that party). However, in Rachel's system, they would only get to compete for 150 of the 300 seats and thus they would not have the support to win any seats in Parliament. Has this system really eliminated nonrepresentation of deserving groups?
2. There are probably on the order of 5% of Canadians who support the Green Party. However, the Green Party never gets any seats in Parliament. Under your system, they might, but they'd only get 5% of the 150 seats proportionally allotted, none of the 150 representatives's seats. So about 7 seats. In the Parliament of 300, Green-supporters making up 5% of the electorate would only have a little over 2% of Parliament. Has this system really eliminated underrepresentation?
3. The NDP commands close to 20% support in Canada. That should qualify them for almost 62 seats in a 309-seat Parliament. Likewise, the Conservatives have 25% support from Canadians. This should qualify them for 77 seats. Yet, the Conservatives elected 99 MPs recently, while the NDP elected only 19. In Rachel's system, the NDP would have won 50 seats (still not equivalent to the 50% support they deserve) while the Conservatives would have elected 88 (still more than the 77 their popular support should warrant). Has Rachel's sytem really eliminated distortions in Parliament?
4. Take a strongly Catholic riding in eastern Canada. The majority of these people are anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage. Yet they like the seasonal employment provisions in the EI program and they like the existance of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Fund. Unfortunately, no political party exists that holds this complement of policies? Isn't this group forced to go unrepresented in Parliament?

5. Let's consider the West's underrepresentation in Parliament. Is this a function of the electoral system (we have plenty of western MPs). Or is this a function of there being very few MPs in the Liberal Causus, very few in Cabinet, and none in 24 Sussex? Wouldn't a, say, Liberal majority under Rachel's system continue to result in Western underrepresentation?

How do you respond to these Rachel?