The number of votes a party receives is the number of votes they have in the legislature. How the candidates are chosen is less important, so geographical representatives may still be elected, but their individual legislative weight will be according to the actual electoral votes (or their party/ceilinged at their share of their party vote) they receive. In a system like this, even if the current (arguably gerrymandered) constituencies are retained, the Green Party with only 3 MLA's would accordingly wield ~14.65 seats worth of authority on legislative votes in the Assembly irregardless. And a lot of the criticisms that pro-FPTP-er's have of most proportional electoral reform is avoided -- geographical representation (can) be retained, legislature size can be as large or small as is efficient, and Independent candidates may still be elected to the Assembly (unlike in many proportional systems), you can even retain most of the local plurality/FPTP system (or pair it with proportional/mixed systems for MLA election). This also has the "added benefit" (depending on your perspective, of course) of limiting the inclusion of "radical" third parties into the legislature, if they are incapable of achieving a plurality in any constituency, which would be one of the few instances in which votes could still be "wasted" (if there is no candidate elected to the Assembly to represent that party's proportion, presumably invalidating those votes). Of course, this may be explicitly prevented by a provision ensuring the election of at least one or more candidate if a modest at-wide popular vote threshold of 5% or so is reached (a standard, efficient quota from my understanding). As the final voting weight is to be party proportional, the weight that individual MLA's have on legislative votes should be according to their seat's share of the proportion of electoral votes their caucus represents at-wide. E.g. Sassafrass Party received 30% of the popular vote, and has 5 seats in the 87 BC Assembly. They all stand as one happy caucus for their terms. So each of those 5 MLA's has a vote weight representative of 6% of the popular vote. Further specificity from their is not currently relevant (so I haven't bothered thinking about it much), but presumably it's best to just keep it as an equivalent share of the caucus popular vote for simplicities sake. Thanks if you read this whole way, just spitballin' over electoral reform that (hopefully) achieves some balance with the concerns of critics and the possibilities for a more direct 21st century democracy. It'd be very interesting to see something like this in BC's eventual future, I think.