(Apologies for the long post, but it needed to include explanation too, as I know few people outside Ireland are familiar with how we run elections..)
Here in Ireland we have what I think is a really strong electoral system. Each constituency fills between three and five seats in parliament, and voters have a single transferable vote (Single transferable vote - Wikipedia) that they can use to choose their member of parliament. My last general-election ballot had eighteen candidates on it, and I was able to rank them in order of my preference from #1 to #18 (you don't have to go all the way down, but I usually rank my preferred four or five, then the ones I absolutely do not want to have in get the lowest possible number, and so I have to fill the rest in between).
In my constituency, we returned two centrist (Fianna Fáil), one centre-right (Fine Gael), and one populist left (Sinn Féin) member to parliament. That wouldn't have been my exact ranking, but still, two of my first five choices are now sitting in the national parliament, so I can't complain too much.
Actually, a lot of British commentators were surprised when Sinn Féin became the largest party elected, and yet did not form a government: but it's actually an example of democracy in action. SF has strong support from its base, but poor support from voters of other parties, and it is historically antagonistic toward every other parties - that made it impossible for them to find a coalition partner. In a way, this betrayed the fact that the party is partly run from Northern Ireland, by politicians more familiar with First-Past-the-Post; in that environment, a strategy of alienating and poaching from fellow-traveller parties is beneficial, but in the Republic, it's a liability, as nobody gets outright majorities, so you need friends after the votes are counted.
So yes, we have a situation where the largest party elected is not in government here simply because its policies were incompatible with what the majority of voters wanted (albeit split across many other parties) - this happens a lot in PR systems, but it can take a bit of explaining to people familiar with FPTP that it's actually a more democratic outcome. (The current Irish government does include a momentous coalition of two major historical rivals, but in truth their policies are very not far apart - certainly closer than either would be to SF)
One big plus is that it's harder to make a safe-seat for a party: because there are multiple seats up for grabs, the big parties run more than one candidate, which gives electors a better choice of who they want as well as what party. This prevents safe-seats from forming, because you're not just competing with the other party, but also your own running-mate: if you aren't popular enough to attract vote transfers from them (or other party candidates), you will not be elected.
To add further protection from safe-seats, the population per seat is limited by the constitution (it also says that, where possible, constituencies should have an even mix of urban and rural voters). So, every five years or so, the total number of sears in parliament is increased, and the constituencies get rejigged - mine will gain one seat. This rearrangement has the effect of slicing local power-bases for candidates: always handy to remind candidates that they have to answer to the whole constituency, not just their pocket of it.
Overall, I'd say our system is more representative than the Dutch/Israeli "Flat PR" system in that we vote for a candidate, not a party. Party-list systems are all vulnerable to undemocratic outcomes as the parties get to decide who sits in parliament, allowing unpopular politicians to continue to serve (it's impossible for the leader of any decent-sized party to lose their seat in a Dutch-style flat-PR system.
Voting for a candidate, not a party is double-edged, and thus national politicians get drawn much closer to local issues than maybe they should, and there is a tendency for seats to run in families in rural areas. The other downside is that the counts take a long time: about two to three days, but some seats can still be being counted five days later.
Here in Ireland we have what I think is a really strong electoral system. Each constituency fills between three and five seats in parliament, and voters have a single transferable vote (Single transferable vote - Wikipedia) that they can use to choose their member of parliament. My last general-election ballot had eighteen candidates on it, and I was able to rank them in order of my preference from #1 to #18 (you don't have to go all the way down, but I usually rank my preferred four or five, then the ones I absolutely do not want to have in get the lowest possible number, and so I have to fill the rest in between).
In my constituency, we returned two centrist (Fianna Fáil), one centre-right (Fine Gael), and one populist left (Sinn Féin) member to parliament. That wouldn't have been my exact ranking, but still, two of my first five choices are now sitting in the national parliament, so I can't complain too much.
Actually, a lot of British commentators were surprised when Sinn Féin became the largest party elected, and yet did not form a government: but it's actually an example of democracy in action. SF has strong support from its base, but poor support from voters of other parties, and it is historically antagonistic toward every other parties - that made it impossible for them to find a coalition partner. In a way, this betrayed the fact that the party is partly run from Northern Ireland, by politicians more familiar with First-Past-the-Post; in that environment, a strategy of alienating and poaching from fellow-traveller parties is beneficial, but in the Republic, it's a liability, as nobody gets outright majorities, so you need friends after the votes are counted.
So yes, we have a situation where the largest party elected is not in government here simply because its policies were incompatible with what the majority of voters wanted (albeit split across many other parties) - this happens a lot in PR systems, but it can take a bit of explaining to people familiar with FPTP that it's actually a more democratic outcome. (The current Irish government does include a momentous coalition of two major historical rivals, but in truth their policies are very not far apart - certainly closer than either would be to SF)
One big plus is that it's harder to make a safe-seat for a party: because there are multiple seats up for grabs, the big parties run more than one candidate, which gives electors a better choice of who they want as well as what party. This prevents safe-seats from forming, because you're not just competing with the other party, but also your own running-mate: if you aren't popular enough to attract vote transfers from them (or other party candidates), you will not be elected.
To add further protection from safe-seats, the population per seat is limited by the constitution (it also says that, where possible, constituencies should have an even mix of urban and rural voters). So, every five years or so, the total number of sears in parliament is increased, and the constituencies get rejigged - mine will gain one seat. This rearrangement has the effect of slicing local power-bases for candidates: always handy to remind candidates that they have to answer to the whole constituency, not just their pocket of it.
Overall, I'd say our system is more representative than the Dutch/Israeli "Flat PR" system in that we vote for a candidate, not a party. Party-list systems are all vulnerable to undemocratic outcomes as the parties get to decide who sits in parliament, allowing unpopular politicians to continue to serve (it's impossible for the leader of any decent-sized party to lose their seat in a Dutch-style flat-PR system.
Voting for a candidate, not a party is double-edged, and thus national politicians get drawn much closer to local issues than maybe they should, and there is a tendency for seats to run in families in rural areas. The other downside is that the counts take a long time: about two to three days, but some seats can still be being counted five days later.
