Would you care to have an election system that puts the minority above the majority? In most proportional representation systems (which are, in my opinion, superior to plurality used in Canada and the US), in order to get a majority, the party with the most votes has negotiations with smaller parties they want to work with (similar ideology or issue). By forming a govt (executive) with the smaller party, the party with the most votes is able to get majority of votes (ie party with most votes has 40% of the vote and the smaller party they negotiated with has 12%, for a total of 52% and hence a majority). There really is no reason to say larger party can pick, but second largest party couldn't pick a coalition partner with more votes than the smaller party that the largest party chose.
Rather than this structure, can we not have the party with the most votes work with the party with the second most votes? It would be more democratic. I mean, why couldn't the party with the second most votes form a govt with another smaller party? Each party could list, in priority order, what they would do if in govt. This way, even if the two largest parties disagreed, there would be an order of what the platform would be - and no secret negotiations. For instance, the largest party received 34% of the vote and the second largest party 20%. With a limit of 10 platform issues for each party - in order - the largest party would have the first 6 platform issues, the second would have 4 (% * 2). If there is a conflict (ie one party having lower taxes and the other higher taxes), then the largest party takes priority, but the second largest party gets another platform issue to replace the one they lost. As far as kingmaker goes, more than one party in govt would still occur within this form in proportional representation.