What I have seen is that Proportional Voting parliaments take longer to come to relatively refined solutions. Then the issue is most often done and done for a real long time. In winner-take-all, I have seen a lot that is not being addressed at all, plus when things are done, they get redone when the other side gets in control.

There is an ignorant aspect to winner-take-all because society as a whole is not what puts these folks in power; just the majority needs to be pleased. They can ignore parts of the real needs, leave them unadressed.

Had the Great Depression not occurred, the New Deal would not have been put in place, and the American Dream would not have been as rosy for most. A disaster of enormous proportions put the best of the best in place in the USA, and of course after 40 years of success, there were then also 40 years of breaking those benefits down because the voting system was not how the New Deal ended up being put in place. We are now back to pre-1929 conditions in the USA with the wealthy having so much money that they have no other place to put it than Wall Street and the bottom parts of society working two jobs not making ends meet.

There is a lot of unrest for real good reasons here, John.

--

The downside of Proportional Voting is that a large nation like the US (or the UK) does not need twenty little parties. That would not be helpful.

But a color copier has red, blue, yellow and black ink, so if a nation did not have at least four empowered parties in control of government sometime in the last 30 years, then that nation has an incomplete democracy. It will have ignorant parts in its political system and it will show that ignorance in the outcomes of society. Most folks will say everything is fine, but they will be the ones that are within purview of the political parties. The ones complaining the most and the deepest are ignored.

Germany has a lot of experience with voting systems; in modern days, they fixed their voting system up just right for a large nation.