You are obviating the "Ley d'Honnt" which basically overrepresents minorities. They have disproportionate representation.

A regional party can have like 6-8 times more representation than a national one with the same amount of votes nominally speaking.

It is legal, but makes no sense, more so taking into account that independentist parties are forbidden in Portugal or France and that here they not only are allowed (I can agree with that), on top of that they can oresent themselves to the national parlament and do national politics when their interest is to break the system (I do not agree with that).

The law for overrepresentation was done to not smash minorities. However, what is happening is the exact opposite: minorities are driving the majority of people instead. Which is even worse and a privilege of a few over most.

Taking stats from the past elections, the most voted party got 39% of the seats with 33% of the votes, and the second party got 34.5% of the seats with 31.7% of the votes. The third and fourth most voted parties got 9.4% and 8.8% of seats with a similar 12.4% and 12.3% of votes. These are all national parties, and it's well known that D'Hondt seat assignment reinforces the most voted parties and punishes everyone else, because the amount of seats in contention on most voting districts is too small. Regional parties have it easier because all their votes are in a small amount of regions, but this doesn't mean they are overrepresented: the percentages of votes and seats match quite well, with some parties being a bit above and others being a bit below. This is because within their regions, these parties are not minorities, so D'Hondt doesn't punish them. The one concession the Spanish system gives to regional parties is a better chance to form their own parliamentary group (important for debate time when discussing laws).

Anyway, I agree that having 50 general election districts (one per province) results in skewed votes. This was done by design as an attempt to have an easier-to-control two party system, and enshrined in the Spanish constitution, so it's not easy to change. It's probably easier to change provinces themselves than the constitution in the current political climate. For instance, merging all provinces in each region together would solve most issues with the voting system, as it would increase the amount of seats in contention.

Regarding the argument about this being a government by a minority of people: the parties that voted for the current government represent roughly 50.5% of the total votes. The current opposition parties represent 45.6% of total votes.

I agree with you in everything here except in one: putting infinitely heterogeneous groups with different interests from Teruel to Canary islands and left and right wing independentists from all areas with different interests and forgiving crimes for the ambition of governing does not look to me like the best formula for peace and stability.

Any midly-responsible governor would have, no matter how much some people dislike it, fone a deal between PSOE-PP.

I do not vote myself BUT this is what looks more sensible, political tendencies apart, for stability: only two homogeneous groups that represent a big amount of the population. Even if I do not feel represented myself.

That sort of arrangement tends to favour anti-mainstream extremists in the long run. Then you'd really be in trouble. Study Weimar.

D'Hondt, I guess you mean, is not a method to introduce distortion of representation, but precisely a method _to reduce distortion_ in parliamentary systems with imperfect representation to begin with (i.e. with circumscriptions). The distortion is primarily coming from something else other than d'Hondt, e.g. electoral circumscriptions being too large or too small.

> taking into account that independentist parties are forbidden in Portugal or France and that here they not only are allowed

This is not true at all. Search for corsican auto-determination. France actually has even allowed auto-determination referenda for DOMs in the very recent past. Certainly it's not exactly the same and I'm oversimplifying (many simply want to get rid of these regions), but please stop pointing fingers to France; you may realize we are not as different from Spain as you think.

> on top of that they can oresent themselves to the national parlament and do national politics when their interest is to break the system (I do not agree with that).

It is a far better outcome to seperate through political means than by uprising.

>The Spanish right wing establishment isn't comfortable when not confidently in power, either by directly being in power, or by being sure whoever is in power wouldn't dare to change course on certain policies.

Could say exactly the same about the socialist party. Or any other party, really.

Also: the party that you call right wing is as progressive as the socialist party. They have never done and will never do any change that is not progressive. Last time they were in power they raised taxes, did nothing to the homosexual marriage, abortion, and domestic violence laws, etc etc.

And to add to this: the "far right" party is just plain right wing conservatives. Not far right. I am amazed nowadays how, not only in Spain, but in Dpain more so, they call almost everything "far right".

If a party is the one most conservative and most authoritarian in parliament, it is completely fair to describe it as "far right". What else could it be? In order to be "plain right" you would need a party further to the right in parliament.

They may not seem extreme to some people, but that only says something about the political leaning of those people.

> If a party is the one most conservative and most authoritarian in parliament, it is completely fair to describe it as "far right"

This is a matter of perception. Far right is isually (literature) described as right, violent and collectivist (facist) wing. Which by the way is quite similar to communism, just with a couple principles changed if you analyze it seriously from individual vs collective rights. How "far right" is used in Spain and a lot of media is not like that at all. Far right is España 2000 and Democracia Nacional.

> They may not seem extreme to some people, but that only says something about the political leaning of those people.

Again, that is your perception. Your perception comes from the status quo, and seems reasonable from a social point of view. However, when the media uses a term incorrectly and politically so often, then it loses its meaning.

That is why it is a good thing to know what we have in front of us and call it by its name. Otherwise all words end up losing their meaning. Far right is often not what most media calls far right by standard literature terms. Maybe by propaganda terms. But even Popular Party or Ciudadanos was tagged as far right sometimes. That's just the political tagging game.

I'd rather see what parties propose rather than qualifying them as something. I think it is more useful for everyone.