That's actually the title of a paper that Douglas Woodall published in Voting matters back in 2003. Woodall's introduction says, in part:

Both in its properties and in the results it gives, it seems to be more like Meek’s version of STV than the traditional version. This is surprising since: (i) in marked contrast with STV, the quota in QPQ is used only as a criterion for election, and not in the transfer of surplus votes; (ii) QPQ, unlike Meek’s method, involves no iterative processes, and so the votes can be counted by hand; and (iii) QPQ derives from the European continental tradition of party list systems (specifically, d’Hondt’s rule), which is usually regarded as quite different from STV. I do not imagine that anyone who is already using STV will see any reason to switch to QPQ; but people who are already using d’Hondt’s rule may feel that QPQ is a natural progression of it, and so more acceptable than STV.

Critically, QPQ satisfies the Droop proportionality criterion.

OpenSTV 1.5 supports QPQ. You've read the paper; now count the election.