What you are proposing is more like requiring a person who has decided they want a small car to decide before see the options which one they want or admit that they really do not want a small car at all -- their inability to choose before the options are fully explored means they want a boat not a small car.Well, it seems that you and the Reverend do, at least, agree that when buying a car, you should be permitted to see the options before committing.
So on the one hand I get your point that right now you and others might prefer to just explore options -- the electoral reform equivalent of checking out Auto Trader, and searching for reviews and prices online.
But at the same time it's been suggested more than once that if we were to have a referendum on the issue, we should refrain from mentioning any particular system of PR by name. And I'm thinking that if we get to the point where we're considering holding a referendum, shouldn't that happen after everyone's had some time to discuss and debate and "online shop", and shouldn't we know what specific system we're talking about as a replacement for the status quo?
And to return to the car analogy, PR proponents are the car salesmen. They can't really expect to sell a new car just by saying "But Sir, all of our cars are better than the one that you've got!". Nor should it be a problem if a potential customer asks why others who've bought a new car from you have experienced poor gas mileage, or frequent breakdowns, or expensive and constant maintenance.
I consider there already is a mandate to work out the best of the many PR options, seek multiparty consensus and to educate the public on it. It is unrealistic to presume that the best choice would succeed with no effort to examine options, no public money and this wierd presumption that we have to have a final choice before we get a look.
I think the present government does have the mandate to proceed to work out -- using public money -- what the best option is and to seek a consensus with the other parties. I think if that is found then the government does have a mandate to proceed to implement it -- all without a referendum. However, if there is no consensus among the parties I agree that the government technically, while it has the right to proceed, given that this is a reversible decision, a referendum would provide a stronger mandate and would provide greater public respect and authority.
In that case it would be a vote between FPTP and the proposed option. But this would come after a process where there is a single option that has prevailed as the best choice among PR proponents. After there has been a full examination and a proposal.
I do not accept that we should go to a premature referendum among all choices as that is designed to split the votes to prefer the existing option. I do not accept that we should have a poorly developed option set up before a public process.
As well, I understand that this will only succeed if the government backs the PR option. In that past the provincial governments did not take a position -- likely hoping it would fail. they were not being honest and set it up to fail.
Parties should take a stand and not pretend to have no opinion.