All systems are flawed (Pooka). Perhaps not all, in a purely technical sense, but those that aren't are flawed in another sense. My point is that a truly fair system can have disadvantages that can make a more or less unfair system being preferable.

You'd have a hard time to find any voting system in Europe that is not unfair (under some circumstances). There is a good reason for that: The unfair systems lead to more stability.

The first German republic (1918-1933) had a completely fair voting system. That led to dozens of small parties in the parliament and to a quick succession of governmental crises. Political commentators have seen this system as one reason for the end of the Weimar republic. And you may remember what came after that republic.

After the war Germany therefore decided (with a glance to Britain) for a system that is not completely fair but has a good chance to lead to stable governments. Chancellor Brandt's Ostpolitik for instance was not supported by the majority of voters but only by a majority in the parliament.

Postwar Italy had a completely fair voting system and had a succession of crises and governments with more different governments than one per year. They looked with envy to the German (and other) voting systems.

Unfairness has not only disadvantages as I could read in some posts.

Wolfgang