Electoral reform can be nuanced and complicated. There are two kinds of runoff voting systems: STV and AV. STV stands for "single transferable vote," while AV stands for "alternative vote." STV is proportional, while AV is majoritarian. Both systems are used in Australia. AV for the Australian House of Representatives. STV for the Australian Senate. Both AV and STV are the same system except that STV is used in multi-member constituencies while AV is used in single-member constituencies. This is why STV is proportional and AV is majoritarian. In the U.S. AV is called "instant runoff voting, IRV for short. FairVote USA supports IRV as being a much fairer system than FPTP.
The Liberal Democrats in the UK support STV. Because they are a third party the only way they can get fair representation is through p.r. I suspect if the LPC became a third party here, they too would support p.r. probably the MMP system the NDP supports.
Because Canada's has a huge land mass with a relatively small population, MMP is the best system of proportional representation for Canada. With a much smaller land mass and much larger population, STV makes more sense for the UK although MMP is used in Scotland and Wales. STV is used in Ireland.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
Even though it is patently unfair, FPTP is easy to understand. That's why a lot of people who are open to having a fair electoral system support having the two round system where a second FPTP election occurs between the two top finishers when the first FPTP election does not provide a majority. This system is worse than AV but a lot of people support it because it is easy to understand. I'm sure it would pass a referendum even though it is worse than AV, STV, and MMP.