Sillier than a system where a party's number of seats has nothing to do with its share of the vote?
In 2005:
Labour won 55.2% of seats with 35.2% of votes
Tories won 30.7% of seats with 32.4% of votes
LibDem won 9.6% of seats with 22% of votes
UKIP won 0% of seats with 2.2% of votes
In 2010:
Labour won 39.7% of seats with 29.0% of the vote
Tories won 47.1% of seats with 36.1% of votes
LibDem won 8.8% of seats with 23.0% of votes
UKIP won 0% of seats with 3.1% of votes
That can't possibly be described as democratic representation, surely?
And?
Majority governments are, by definition, an elected dictatorship that cannot be restrained except by internal rebellion. The opposition cannot, even with unanimity, vote down the executive without significant help from government rebels.
To have a system where, most of the time, the executive is unrestrained by Parliament cannot be anything other than a dangerous, ludicrous and totally undemocratic state of affairs.
That's very easy to deal with using thresholds.