Why do critics of proportional representation argue that elections should build consensus?

Critics of proportional representation argue that the primary purpose of an election is for a country to make a definitive decision, rather than simply conducting a census of public opinion. From this perspective, the electoral system should function to build a consensus that reflects a unified direction for the nation.1

Opponents of proportional representation contend that by allowing small parties to gain legislative seats, the system encourages the formation of splinter parties. They argue that this fragmentation can lead to weak, unstable coalition governments where no single party is clearly accountable for the government's performance. In contrast, critics often favor systems that incentivize parties to seek broad majority support, which they believe moderates political strife by forcing parties to reconcile conflicting interests and present programs that appeal to a wide range of voters.123