Even though the importance of elections for a democracy is unquestionable, a perfect electoral system does not exist. Diverse types of electoral systems try to mirror society in the legislative and executive bodies which produce very different and unpredictable political effects and are often criticized for that reason. The main goal of this paper is to explore the political effect of the most controversial element of the Croatian electoral system that is being revisited after each election – transferring votes into seats. It is interesting to see that Victor D'Hondt, the creator of the system of transferring votes into seats that Croatia uses, is considered to be the main culprit. Therefore, the main research question is how much is Victor D’Hondt at fault? The answer will be derived out of a simulation based on the actual parliamentary election results from 2000 to 2016 and a comparison of results of the elections using D’Hondt method with the Sainte-Laguë and modified Sainte-Laguë methods of transferring votes into seats, the two methods considered to be the most proportional. Also, another thing that was run through the simulation using the same election results was the possibility of the employment of an at-large system and the consideration of the effects of such a system. After pointing out the results of the simulations and considering the Gallagher index of disproportionality, the conclusion is that the need to switch to another system of transferring votes into seats is not strong enough since the results show only a minimum increase in proportionality. The request for turning Croatia into only one electoral district by using an at-large system has been pointed out as a failure since only two parties would gain seats in the parliament. In conclusion, we present guidelines to changing the electoral system of Croatia, mainly considering redistricting and the advancement of the system of preferential voting.