Damn straight Houellebecq you beat me to it.
Adding to that:

-The limited choice of individual electorates don't actually get to vote for who they want- but whichever LOCAL candidate is better than the others

-That a party's mandate is based SOLELY through how many (arbitrarily drawn) regions vote for a member of the same party (obvious problem for independents), and this mandate may well be based on the approval of only 30% of the population, because they were the biggest MINORITY.

-ANY purely representative democracy, policy is decided on the whim of a swinging voter/swinging party minority- secure seats (or secure opposition seats) are entirely neglected.

-And the simple fact that the parties can put the electorate on the back seat if it seems nobody wants to risk the (similar) opposition, or doesn't think the chances of everyone else coincidentally voting an independent or third-party are very high (three years down the line).

Anyway, the opposition has no role at all except to promote itself through whatever dubious claims it thinks will get sympathy. And even then (as far as Australian voting history is concerned), fails to do even THAT, as people seem to stick with the main party until things get so extremely bad a minority of swinging voters in a few marginal electorates oust their representatives and effectively tip the balance of power.

There are plenty of countries across Europe that have better models- and at least they were conceived to be actual democracies- unlike Westminster which seems to have the destitute monarchs, lords and aristocrats in mind more than the peasantry.