[phantom784]

> 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament.

I agree with your argument in general, but couldn't this still happen with a parliament? If a party controls 50% + 1 of the parliament, then they're in control. Still, it's better than that control being given to a single person of course.

[surgical_fire]

Typically no (unless you're the UK with a very dysfunctional FPTP system).

Typically the parliament is fractured in multiple parties, because in parliamentarism there is not automatic incentive to vote for one of the big parties otherwise you are wasting your vote. If the party you vote for has 5% of the representation in the parliament, it can still be part of a coalition to form the government and influence decisions.

[Etherlord87]

I'm not an expert on this, but the way I see it, the opposite is true: people don't vote on small parties, because if a small party doesn't reach the minimum required, the vote is wasted. This way there's only a few parties (if the minimum is 5% then there can't really be more than 20 parties, and since the distribution is very far from even, you get around around 4-7 parties with 5% minimum).

However, the big parties often consist of sub-factions.

However, it seems there are mechanisms that turn parties into dictatorships with one person ruling everything in the entire party, as well as people get carried away with negative emotions and vote against, polarizing the politics into just 2 parties alternating in power.