On compromise in majority vs consensual systems of democracy

Compromise and deliberation are perhaps more important in majority systems of democracy than they are in proportional or consensual models. This is because the large parties that emerge from winner-takes-it-all models need to somehow represent huge segments of the population with vastly different interests. The only way to effectively do this (as in the case of British or US parties) is through internal factions. The debates, compromises, and negotiations that are typically seen in Parliament or between parties in continental Europe are still present in the majority systems but they are carried out within the parties, between competing factions. This ensures some representation for all groups of voters but the process is carried out through informal channels rather than institutionally (in Parliament for example), meaning there is less oversight and fewer limitations on what and how can be negotiated. Whether this is desirable or not is up for discussion, although I personally prefer the consensual model, as it allows non-partisan actors such as NGOs or mass media to get more involved in the debate without having to pay the entry fee backstage where talks are held.