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.