Is this better?
The problem is that the question is writing a lot to ask a very simple question:
"Why do parliaments fail to accurately represent the opinions on every political issues?"
This is a good question. It could be answered based on game theory (is matching opinon polls really the best strategy to get the most seats?), on math (If you have x potential candidates and y issues, how likely is it that a perfect solution even exists?), on political theory (is that actually the intention of representative democracy?) or on applied voter psychology (why do people vote for parties which don't actually represent their interests?).
The answers would provide some good insights into the principles, strengths and weaknesses of representative democracy.
But this question is clear after about the 10th sentence. Then the question keeps on rambling about pornography censorship and gay rights and governor election systems. That's all unnecessary, because it just distracts from the actual question without adding anything to it. This might be the reason why some people have the impresson that you are just trying to promote a political cause. It looks like you are using your question as a vessel to soap-box about your political views.
So in order to improve the question I would recommend to radically cut it down to the actual question and the minimum of explanation which is required to understand it.
If you feel that an example is required, I would recommend to try to find an example which generate the minimum of emotional impact with you and with most readers. Maybe make up some absurd fictional issue nobody really takes serious. This answer, for example, uses pet preferences and cheesburger construction as proxies for more relevant political question.