FPTP has many many flaws, one being that it trends towards a defacto 2-party system due to strategic voting, especially if only one spectrum is divided (i.e. liberal/ndp, or alliance/progressive conservatives back a few decades ago).
The Anonymous Party list, and opaque process are not inherent factors on any of the replacements for FPTP, in fact the only one WITH the list was supposed to be an open list, and that was the system with the least political support.
Ranked/alternate voting, STV and other options directly address the issues with FPTP without introducing the drawbacks of MMP/unelected leaders being selected for seats.
Ranked/alternate voting and STV shouldn't be lumped into the same bucket.
Ranked voting is a majoritarian variant of FPTP that doesn't fix many of the flaws of FPTP. There is still the flaw of "favourite betrayal" that induces a need to vote "strategically".
Single Transferable Vote involves ranking candidates but is a Proportional System.
Alterate ranked voting somewhat addresses the idea of needing to strategically vote (favorite betrayal) in favour of your ideal candidate, but only to a degree depending on the parties and initial polling support (a runaway party you don't like will still lead to strategically voting for the party most likely to beat them). Its proportional in that the winners have to get at the most amount of votes across the ranks after eliminations, i.e. you can't win if no one picks you as second/third option, so you have to be picked by someone therefore you are considered to be representing them.
STV does a much better job of it and is why I was strongly in support of STV over AR/MMP or other options.
There is no way 2 parties can represent the diversity of opinions and ideas in the country.
2 parties means power tends to jump back and forth due to the recent ruling party doing badly vs the opposition actually providing an alternative and compelling change. This means parties tend to "lose" more than actually "win" elections.
2 dominant parties when one side of the spectrum is split among 2-3 parties tends to allow a smaller minority to achieve stronger governments which is not representative. I.E the split on the right in the 90's allowed the Liberals to have many successive majority governments despite less than 50% of support for many of those elections. In the aughts the alliance and PC merger turned that around and now the NDP and Liberals tend to split the left to a degree and the right can win a strong majority with 35-38% of the actual vote. This doesn't benefit any side long term.
"getting things done" isn't always the best metric for a political party, especially when they don't have the public support for their changes.
STV or various other methods that allow proportional results while maintaining current representation and government size were the best outcome, but didn't benefit the liberals so they dropped it.
The Anonymous Party list, and opaque process are not inherent factors on any of the replacements for FPTP, in fact the only one WITH the list was supposed to be an open list, and that was the system with the least political support.
Ranked/alternate voting, STV and other options directly address the issues with FPTP without introducing the drawbacks of MMP/unelected leaders being selected for seats.