Anarchists do not have a preference for pr

It is not inconsistent for anarchists to stand for election. Whatever system is being used whether it is fptp or pr it is fine for anarchists to stand. We do not need to agree with government to stand for election. So we can think of the Tories in this way they are like anarchists who reject the concept of democracy altogether. They are not being hypocrites (as was claimed in the previous blog) when they stand for election and reject pr because it might be that they reject government altogether. There is no reason why anarchists (such as the Tories) would prefer proportional representation. Anarchists dislike both fptp and pr equally.

Only people who like pr should be politicians

Politicians who stand for elected office are by definition democrats otherwise they would not be participating in the democratic process. It is a contradiction to stand for elected office and reject the principle of (government and) democracy. If you are not a democrat it makes no sense for you to stand for elected office. But then since everyone who stands in a fptp election is a democrat it makes no sense that they do not insist on proportional representation. If politicians are democrats (and it would inconsistent to be otherwise) then it makes no sense that they do not insist on proportionality. It makes no sense for politicians in a democracy to be opposed to pr. All politicians in a democracy are democrats and so for this reason first past the post makes no sense. Fptp makes no sense because it accepts the principle of democracy (at least partially) but not entirely. To be consistent we must either fully accept the principles of democracy and be for proportionality or reject fptp because it is democratic. It makes no sense for democrats (and non-democrats) to support fptp. Anyone who rejects pr has no business participating in fptp elections because fptp elections are democratic. If we do not like pr because it is democratic (and there is no other reason) then we are being hypocrites if we stand for office in a fptp election. It is wrong to reject pr if we are willing to accept fptp. If pr is wrong then so too is fptp because they are both democratic and so someone who stands for election who rejects pr but not fptp is being a hypocrite. Only people who like democracy and pr should stand in elections. People who do not like pr should not stand in even fptp elections. They should not stand in any elections. Only people who like pr should (be politicians and) stand for elected office. People who do not like pr should not be politicians.

Proportional representation is similar to anarchy

There are only three different types of (viable) means to organise society. If we have democracy we can either have proportional representation or first past the post. The third option is to have no government at all. Because democracy is the means to reduce the government (if there is one) then if there is government we would want to have pr if we want freedom. Without pr (and with fptp) there can be no freedom. If we assume anarchy is freedom and not tyranny then we an say that both pr and anarchy offer the opportunity for freedom. First past the post is the only type of (democratic) government which makes freedom impossible. (Democracy is freedom unless we have fptp.) Freedom is impossible if we have fptp... it is only possible if we have anarchy or pr. Only anarchy or proportional representation offer the opportunity for freedom. We cannot get freedom if we have fptp.

We cannot stop the government with fptp

The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to veto and reject the actions of the government. Democracy enables the people to stop the government. But if we do not have proportional representation it becomes very difficult to stop the government. If both of the main parties share similar policies the people are not able to stop those policies. If they seek to stop the shared policies (of the two main parties) they will waste their vote. (The only effective votes endorse socialism.) The government cannot be stopped when fptp is used. With pr voters are able to stop the government because they can vote for a candidate who does not agree with the proposed government intervention. It is not certain that pr will result in freedom but it is a possibility which it is not under fptp.

Tories prefer proportional representation

It is inconsistent for the Tories to be both anti-state (in terms of economics) and to favour the first-past-the-post voting system. Fptp enables the state to carry out its programme with less resistance from the people. It is easier for the government to get a mandate for socialism when using fptp than with pr so fptp enables more government socialism to take place. If we assume Tories are being truthful when they claim to oppose socialism and prefer capitalism then they are wrong to oppose the introduction of pr. To be consistent in disliking socialism it would make sense for the Tories to prefer pr. If the Tories are truly anti-socialists they would prefer pr. If the Tories are not lying about their preference for capitalism then they prefer pr not fptp.

First past the post exists because it is popular

There can be no (democratic) government without proportional representation because to be legitimate the government must be popular. First past the post is not popular because voters do not have a free choice which means that governments can only use pr. To not be popular is to not be a government which means governments cannot use fptp. All governments are popular which means they can only use pr.

There isn't a crack in everything...

The Tories are to the left of the people

First past the post is good if the voters are to the left of the Tories... then fptp prevents them getting the socialism they want because (fearing Labour) they will vote for the Tories and not get as much socialism as otherwise. Ignoring the fact that if they are to the left of the Tories they might vote Labour. (We can assume Labour are too extreme even for a left-wing electorate.) Fptp is good only if the Tories are right wing. If the Tories are to the left of the population then proportional representation is preferable.

First past the post is bad for freedom

Democracy is the mechanism by which the people are able to reject government legislation. This means that without democracy there is (unchecked) tyranny. First past the post is a form of democracy which enables the government to do more and intervene more than it otherwise would be able to do. Proportional representation enables the population to constrain the government to the greatest extent. So people who want less government would prefer pr. But with pr there is a risk that (under the fptp system) your vote will not count because you will not be able to reject one of the mainstream parties. The fptp system means that in order to reject fptp you must risk 'wasting' your vote by not expressing a preference between the two establishment parties. People who want less government are willing to vote for a party which is not part of the fptp duopoly. They are not scared of democracy. To not fear democracy is to not fear free markets and capitalism because if there is more democracy it is easier to reject the government (and socialism). To tolerate democracy and pr is to tolerate freedom. People who fear freedom support fptp.

There are no votes in proportional representation

The reason fptp is difficult to remove is that only politicians can change it by definition and they are not people who want more democracy. Democracy is bad for the state... it is the means by which the people can veto and reject government proposals. This means that democracy is always a bad thing for politicians and we cannot realistically expect them to be in favour of expanding the franchise. (Enabling more people to vote.) They are not concerned that (under fptp) the state is not fully accountable to the people... because they do not care about accountability. Only if the government cares about a lack of democracy will pr ever replace fptp but the government doesn't care so it will never change.

Only the left support first past the post

Tory voters are composed of two types... there are those who genuinely support the party and the fptp system. These people are not voting tactically when they support the Tories. The other group are people who would prefer to have a free choice and would prefer proportional representation but vote for the Tories to keep Labour out. We can think of this second group as true liberals and Libertarians. People who vote for the Tories non-tactically but out of true and genuine support are on the left because they are endorsing a two-party system which is not democratic. True Tories who do not support a reform of the voting system are to the left politically. People (including Tories) who support fptp are left-wing. No one on the right supports the Tory party for anything other than tactical reasons... in part at least because the Tories reject proportional representation. If the Tories reject pr then none of their genuine (non-tactical) voters can claim to be anything other than to the left. If the Tories reject pr they are left-wing. Support for fptp indicates leftism.

Fptp makes it easier for governments to form

There is no legitimate (political) power without proportionality. If the government seeks to form without a proportional mandate it is doing so without adequate consent. To have power requires that the governing coalition must get at least half of the vote. If this is not achieved (as is usually the case when using fptp) then it has no mandate. And this applies to the individual constituencies as well. To not get half of the vote is to not get a mandate. Without proportionality the government has no right to form and there is no (legitimate) government. There is no reason not to have pr because if a government does not get enough votes to win under pr but it does get enough to win with fptp then it is forming a government without (true) consent. If it is only because of the unfair voting system that a government gets elected it has no mandate and so there is no reason not to use pr. All elections for government should be proportional. There is no good reason to have fptp. There is no government which is not elected proportionally. It is not a case of fptp governments not being legitimate because to be legitimate they must first be a government which they are not when using fptp. (There are no fptp governments.) If we want a government we can only use pr... fptp is not a valid system.

There are no arguments in favour of pr

In political discourse the argument is usually 'won' when it can be shown that to take a certain position exhibits some kind of bigotry or false assumption. The obvious example of this is in the case of apartheid where the discrimination taking place is open and explicit. Normally when this discrimination has been shown the argument has been lost. (And the system is obviously wrong.) So to win a political argument we must show an assumption of bigotry or collectivism. The problem with exposing the difficulties of the first-past-the-post voting system is that it is only the political right who are sensitive to claims of collectivism. We seek to show that fptp is collectivist and will tend to result in a collectivist government. But these arguments are only effective against the political right. The left do not see a contradiction in a political system being favourable to the collective majority and so we can only argue with the right. But our premise is that the political and democratic system itself discriminates against the right in which case the opinion of the right will be redundant. If the right are able to get into power (and their opinion is relevant) then arguments against fptp have been shown to be false. If fptp is a problem then only the left will be successful in an election and it is only they who can change the system. But the argument against fptp is that it is collectivist which not an argument which is successful against the left and so we have an impasse. We cannot win the argument against fptp because being collectivist and left-wing is not a contradiction for the left. The left don't mind that the liberal right cannot win. And if they (the left) don't keep winning there is no argument against it. Only if the left always win under fptp is it a problem but then the left will not care. If it's a problem (and the left keep winning) then nothing can be done about it... because the arguments won't work people that don't care about collectivism are the only people who are in a position to remove it. The system protects itself. People against it can never get into power unless by deception.

Labour don't care about democracy

It makes no sense for all the power in an election to be given (only) to the majoritarian winner. With proportional representation it is possible for power (in parliament) to be shared evenly between the candidates according to their popularity. There is no reason to give all the power to the largest party... as happens with fptp. The Labour party exploit (and do nothing to remedy) the historical fact that fptp is used in this country which means they get power which they would not otherwise get. The left-wing state could but doesn't give people proportional democracy. It would be generous of the left to share this power but shared power is no power so they need to keep fptp as it is. Pr would be the end of Labour and the left. It would be a kind of resignation. This state of affairs contradicts the notion that the party of the left in a fptp system is the 'nice' party. If the left were nice they would give the people proportional representation.

First past the post is not the fault of the right

If first-past-the-post is a left-wing monopoly (and there can be no other legitimate complaint against it) then there is little point complaining about fptp to the Tories. If fptp is bad then the Tories are irrelevant and their opinion on fptp is irrelevant. Only the Labour party have a case to answer if fptp is a monopoly for the left. The right have nothing to apologise for with regard to first past the post.

There are no property rights... without pr

If the state uses democracy to seek a mandate for its authority it has failed to do so if the elections are not proportional. Only proportional elections can give the state a mandate to protect and defend property rights. There are no property rights without pr. First past the post does not confer onto the state the legitimacy to defend property rights.

Proportional representation is shared representation

Government is a requirement for peace and free markets. Without government there can be no property rights because by definition to have property requires that there is consent. And to have consent means that there must be a single authoritarian arbiter who decides who owns what. Without a government there can be no property rights and so to have peace requires government. Since we require government it is better to have democracy but if we have fptp this means that (eventually) voters will have only two parties to choose from. This is not good for anyone. We need government but we also need to share power otherwise the problem of only having two parties will present itself. Without pr there will only be two parties which is not good for anyone. It is better to ensure that voters can gain representation whichever party they support. This means that we share power with each other rather than enable a two-party system to emerge. Pr is how we protect ourselves against the two-party system. It is better to have democracy and share power with each other than allow the two main parties to take control. It is better to give the power to the people than to allow it to rest with the two big parties. Only parties in receipt of tactical votes have something to fear from pr but if people are voting for you tactically it is better to let them be free and vote for whomever they like. It is better to have pr than to gain power via tactical voting.

Rational people accept that pr is preferable

The opposite of democracy is communism... when there is no means for the people to reject government (when there is no democracy) then communism or something like it will result. All forms of tyranny are similar to communism. Great harm cannot be done by a single person alone. It requires a group which is not accountable to its subjects to cause tyranny. Without democracy there is communism and tyranny so it is better to have pr than fptp. There is always a state (anarchy is impossible because there would be no property rights) so the pertinent question is which type of democracy is the best. (Is it better to be ruled by two parties or many?) It is inconsistent for a liberal to support fptp because it is less democratic than pr which means advocates of fptp are statists. Democracy is bad for the state and good for the people so people who reject pr are defending the state. All anti-state people (including anarchists) prefer more democracy to less because more democracy means less (unwelcome) state. People who defend fptp are guilty of defending the state... or perhaps they do not realise that democracy is the only means by which society can be organised. If someone is waiting for the return of the messiah it might be consistent for them to reject pr in the hope that something better will come along. But there is nothing better than democracy so there is no reason to reject pr. There is no rational reason to reject pr.

Capitalism is synonymous with democracy

First past the post is bad for capitalism because the two main parties have little incentive to withdraw from the market. The main parties are both socialist and like to intervene in the market ostensibly to help the poor but in reality to help themselves. Socialism (defined by government spending) is nothing more than an excuse for the government to enrich themselves. If not for socialism the poor would be much better off because the government would have less of a reason to obstruct their natural economic progress... and withdraw from the market in areas such as land and banking. Socialism is an excuse for the rich government to steal money from the population (including the poor) and if we do not have sufficiently efficient democracy it will flourish. The government will find it easier to steal money from people if we do not have a powerful enough democratic system which is why proportional representation is preferable. Pr prevents socialism which is why it is good for the poor and bad for the (relative) rich. Socialism is bad for the poor which is why pr is a better system of government. First past the post is bad for the poor because it stifles the market and enables socialism.

First past the post is good for the rich

The government not only subsidises poverty it also subsidies wealth in the form of hand-outs to large corporations and banks. It also subsidises land-owners by providing a system of protections (for their land) and protection of private property for people that own land. So it is not only the familiar welfare and means-tested benefits (for the poor) which the government provides to the people. It is often the rich who are in receipt of government subsidies. So given this we might ask which voting system is best at protecting the poor and preventing the rich from magnifying their (relative) wealth by receiving hand-outs from the government. If the voting system is organised on a winner-takes-all basis then it is very easy for the rich and other vested interests to make sure the politicians of both parties are sympathetic to their concerns. It is very much more difficult to buy off politicians (and guarantee subsidies in return) if anyone from an almost unlimited number of parties is able to gain representation... as is the case with proportional representation. So fptp makes it easier for the rich to ensure their continued (receipt of) support from the government. First past the post is good for the rich because power is delivered to (only) one of only two political parties.

The right is loyal to the Tories only because of fptp

The left will do well under fptp because collectivism and voting for a large party is consistent with their outlook. Fptp is a problem for the right alone because voters on the right tend to be less comfortable voting for a large party and do not like the sense of responsibility required to vote for the Tories in a fptp election. It is less of a problem for the left to vote Labour than it is for the right to vote for the Tories because people on the right are more individualistic and have more of an objection to being obligated to act in certain ways. The right are more politically disloyal and rebellious and so fptp favours the left. It is strange then that most of the complaints to do with the voting system come from the left. The Tories apparently do not care that the left have an electoral advantage if we use fptp. It would be normal for the right to be outraged and object to this state of affairs and yet they are generally silent. The right is loyal to the Tories because of first past the post and so when the Tory party is threatened in any way (even with pr) the Tory right perceive this as a threat to the right when in reality it is a liberation of the right. Their hostility to proportional representation indicates they are not aware that their loyalty to the Tories is derived from first past the post. Tory opposition to proportional representation is evidence of their ignorance of how first past the post works. If Tories were knowledgeable about how the voting system works they would support pr. The right is loyal to the Tories (only) because of first past the post so their opposition to pr is unfounded.

First past the post is a permanent arrangement

We cannot get rid of first past the post by argument. If we assume one of the parties is to the right (the Tories) and the other to the left (Labour). It is the party of the right which is most susceptible to arguments concerning the nature of democracy. If it can be shown that pr reduces the size of government then it is difficult for the right to reject the proposal. But the problem is that arguments in favour of pr that show it will reduce the size of the state are also arguments that show being socialist is a bad strategy (for parties) and that voters prefer freedom. If voters prefer freedom then there is no particular problem with fptp because voters will reject socialism. If the only reason to reject supporting the Tories is their support for fptp then you have little to complain about. If all of their other policies are to your liking then it seems absurd to complain about such a narrow issue. Tories will not be satisfied with arguments in favour of pr because they see no reason not to vote for their own party (by definition) and it cannot be true that only fptp is preventing you from voting for them. If they were compatible in every other area you would not hesitate to support them. So arguments for pr do not work against the Tories and Labour too have little reason to change their position and support pr. They do well from people voting tactically against the Tories and if it is true that fptp favours socialism they will be happy to 'punish' liberals by retaining fptp. Labour have no interest in removing fptp and substantive arguments in favour of pr are anti-state and anti socialism arguments which we would not expect Labour to be amenable to. Labour are happy to retain fptp and punish the anti-socialist right and so we have an impasse. Fptp remains because it is not in the interests of either side to remove it... either rhetorically or tactically.

Only proportional states are valid

Contrary to the claims of its adherents first-past-the-post does not give strong government. It gives weak government. Governments formed with fptp do not have a proper mandate which means they do not have the legitimate support of the people and are invalid. Only with pr can it be said that the state has the consent and support of the people. The state acts with no authority if its only mandate is a fptp election which means that fptp governments are weak. Governments formed by pr are strong in comparison to those formed under fptp.

Only socialists support first past the post

First past the post guarantees a socialist outcome which is why the Tories are so enthusiastic in their support for it. It is a mistake to think that Tories are (as they claim to be) to the right politically. If they were on the right they would not vote for a party which endorses fptp. We know that Tories are a left-wing party and not in favour of freedom because they support a party which rejects pr. If the Tories were in favour of freedom they would support pr. Tories support fptp not freedom.

People are socialists otherwise we would have pr

It is not good for the population of a country to have first past the post. Proportional representation is preferable for the people... but it is strange that people would tolerate the fptp parties given that pr is better. It is strange that voters do not demand pr. Perhaps the people like the socialism which results from first past the post and they do not want the rest of the population to be able to vote for liberal parties. It is a way for people to trap the rest of the population into a socialist system. Even if most people are socialist pr is not a threat to their preferred system because a majority socialist government would be elected by definition. Even socialists have nothing to fear from pr... unless they are in the minority in which case it would make sense for the rest to make sure that elections are proportional. Most people are socialists (and pr would not offer freedom) otherwise we would have proportional elections. We do not have pr because most people are to the left but given that reality pr would not improve things. If fptp is a problem we would not have it. The existence of fptp demonstrates that most people are socialists.

The Tories would do better if they supported pr

Part of the reason the Tories are unpopular is their support for fptp. And it is fptp which makes it hard for them to win elections. They might not be able to control with an absolute majority under pr (only in a coalition) but still this would be preferable for them and their supporters than for Labour to win all the time under fptp. Tory support for fptp is stopping people being free of Labour because they would get more votes if they supported pr. Tories lose votes because of their support for fptp which enables Labour to win. Tory support for fptp lets Labour win.

It is insane to deny that fptp favours the Labour party

It is impossible for the right to win a fptp election because the left is more comfortable voting for a large party and so they will win under fptp. This means that people who support the main party of the right... the Tory party... are causing harm to their country. They are helping to perpetuate the dream that the Tories can win under fptp which they cannot. It is harmful to the country to vote for the Tories because they do not support pr. To deny that Tories cannot win a fptp election is to be insane and deny the truth. Tory insanity is hurting the country. It is insane to deny that Labour will always win a fptp election and that pr is required. It is insane (for the right) to prefer fptp.

Libertarians do not vote tactically

It is generally assumed that in a fptp voting system people will coalesce around the two main parties and vote tactically. But as time passes we see fewer and fewer voters opting to endorse the two main parties. Tactical voting is becoming less important. And this is a problem for the political right because the left are more inclined to vote for an already popular party. There is no reason for Libertarians to vote for the Libertarian party they could vote for an alternate Libertarian party. There could be many different Libertarian parties. But with socialism it doesn't make sense not to vote for the established party of the left because socialism requires collectivism. For the left it is natural to vote for the big parties which means fptp favours the left. Fptp is not good for the right because right-wing voters are not interested in voting for the big establishment parties. Individualists and Libertarians are punished by fptp because they do not vote for the big parties.

Pr is the only alternative to Labour

If the state doesn't trust the electorate with proportional elections (and instead restricts them to fptp) they will vote tactically and not for whom they truly want. The result of this is that people coalesce around the two main parties which means that the liberating mechanism of democracy (in constraining the state) is thwarted. Democracy is the means by which the people are able to constrain and hold the state to account. If democracy is restricted to first past the post tactical voting will result which means the state is less restricted and more liberated than it was. Fptp is good for the state because people don't vote for whom they like... instead for whom they fear the least. If people can't vote for whom they like the state will exploit this situation and there will be (unwanted) socialism. A large part of the socialism perpetrated by the state under fptp has no democratic mandate and would not exist without fptp. Pr reduces socialism to only that required by the people. Without pr we cannot know if the socialism being provided by the state has a democratic mandate. It is possible that some of the socialism under fptp is unwanted. Only with pr is it possible for us to know that the socialism provided by the state has a mandate. Fptp is good only for (the kind of) socialists who do not seek a mandate. It is not good for socialists who seek a mandate for their actions. If democracy is important to the (socialist) state then there is no alternative than to have pr. Libertarian advocates of fptp do not realise that without pr people will vote tactically (and not for the Tories)... and that in general this will be favourable to (Labour and) the left. It is a contradiction to assume that the right are willing to have the discipline to vote (tactically) for the Tories in a fptp election which is why pr is preferable. Tactical voting is less of an issue for the left because for them there is no contradiction in voting for the monolithic Labour party... since it matches their big-state ideology. For the right tactical voting is more of a concern and it means the right do not get the same levels of tactical support that exist on the left. The right do not like to vote tactically which is why fptp is a problem. The Tories are going to keep losing under fptp which means pr is the only means by which the country can be free of unchosen and undemocratic socialism. The Tories cannot win under fptp which means proportional representation is the only means by which Labour will not have control. Only pr can stop Labour. The only choice is to have Labour constantly winning under fptp or to have proportional representation.

Without pr there can be no property rights

Without the state there can be no property rights so (unless we do not need property rights) the state is good whether or not people consent to it. (By definition people do not consent to the property claims of other people... otherwise such claims would be redundant. Property is antagonistic.) The state is justified not because of the consent of the people but because of utilitarian (pragmatic) arguments in defence of property rights. Since the state is (a pragmatic) good then it is inconsistent for it not to be elected proportionally. Proportional elections still provide property rights so there is no reason for the state to deny full choice to the people. There is no reason for the state to deny full democracy to the people. The alternative to pr is to have a two-party fptp system whereby property rights will be determined by not the people but instead the least bad of the two available parties. In a sense we can think of property rights determined by a proportionally elected government as being in some sense objective. We can get no closer to objective property rights than with proportional representation. Property comes from the state but first past the post fails to justify property claims made by the state since it is not fully democratic. Only proportional representation enables the state to make valid (and even objective) claims to property.

The state should not use first past the post

The antithesis of anarchy is to have proportional representation. With pr the people are able to control the government and the government is precisely representative of the people. Pr enables the state to share its power with the people so everyone is included in policy. It is good to be democratic but with fptp we are only able to choose one of two possible candidates which means the political process devolves into a competition between two large parties. It would be more generous of the state (in their behaviour towards anarchists) to give people more than fptp which is to give them pr. Proportional representation is a form of generosity by the state towards anarchists. It is wrong of the state to deny proportional elections to the people. If the state is not a force for good (defending property rights against anarchy) then it is consistent to deny democracy to the people. But if the state is good then it makes sense to give people the best and most proportional form of democracy possible. Pr makes sense because the state is good.

Anarchy is worse than statism

Democracy is bad only for communists. The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to hold the state accountable... which means that democracy is bad for communists who seek to expand the purview of the state. Democracy is an oppressive threat to communists who seek to prevent the people from imposing themselves on the state. The state wants to be free from democracy which is why many people on the left will defend fptp. Fptp is favourable to only those people who want to protect the state from the people. Libertarians are content to let the people impose their beliefs on the state and so they are willing to tolerate (and prefer) proportional representation. Fptp is bad for Libertarians because it is not sufficiently oppressive (for the state). Pr is oppressive but it is oppressive to the state which means that it is good. That which is bad for the state is good for the people... apart from perhaps outright anarchy. If there is not anarchy then the state is bad. Only anarchy is worse than statism.

Fptp is better than dictatorship or anarchy

It is better for a government to be democratically elected which means that pr is preferable to fptp even if the party you support does well under fptp. Labour generally do better than the Conservatives under fptp which means it is good for them. But even though fptp is good for the left pr would be better because even if the left win it is still better for the government to be (truly) democratically accountable. Democracy is better than fptp but fptp is better than dictatorship or anarchy.

Only pr can stop socialism

First past the post is good for socialism because when the choice (for voters) is reduced to just two political parties it is unlikely that people will choose the party of the right. We can assume that most voters want some form of socialism (otherwise democracy is redundant) so they will be reluctant to risk losing it by voting for the party of the right. Given that fptp favours the left it is strange that the party of the right do not realise this and support pr. It is strange to think that the party of the right do not realise that expecting non-socialist voters to have the disciple and loyalty to vote for them is fanciful. The party of the right assume voters will have the loyalty and discipline to vote for them in a fptp election... even though this discipline is not required in a pr system. Non-socialists must be loyal to a party which has the ability to make that loyalty unnecessary. The right must vote for (for example) the Tories only because the Tories reject pr... so in that sense the Tories are using blackmail against the right-wing voter. With socialism (provided by the party of the left) acting as the threat. The Tories get into power by making Labour look terrible and using fear to get people to vote for them. With fptp they are the only alternative to socialism. It is only if the Tories prefer being in power to a greater degree than they dislike the country being ruled by Labour that it makes sense for them (the Tories) to support fptp. In order to (avoid pr and) remain in power they are prepared to risk the country being ruled by Labour. Tories fear (hate) pr more than they fear being ruled by the Labour party.

People to the right of the Tories dislike fptp

We can assume that in a fptp system Duverger's law holds and that there are two main parties which emerge. To vote for any of the other parties is generally considered to be a wasted vote. This means that voters have a choice between an ostensibly left-wing party and a right-wing party. Whilst this might be adequate for voters who consider themselves between these parties it is obviously a problem for people 'outside' this pair. People on the right of (for example) the Tories and people on the left of Labour are excluded. Because democracy is the means by which the electorate can hold the state to account and stop its expansion it is rational to be more concerned about a lack of democracy on the right than the left. So if we consider people to the right of the Tories... they have no one to vote for but the Tory party who may be too economically interventionist (socialist) for their taste. This means that people on the right are not able to constrain the government to the extent that they wish to. For everyone to the left of the Tories fptp appears to be an adequate system because Tory voters have a party available to them to their right and Labour voters are not really too concerned about a lack of democracy on the right. (Although they may be concerned about Labour being too right-wing.) So fptp works for (and is tolerated by) everyone to the left of the Tories.

Proportional representation offers the most freedom

There is no political system which gives people more freedom than proportional representation. Before we make the comparison between fptp and pr we can think of other possible systems which do not involve democracy. One alternative to democracy is to have no state at all. This is anarchy and it is often proposed as the best possible system... but the problem with this is that it does not give people sufficient (or any) property rights. To have freedom we must have property rights which means anarchy is not a possible candidate for the best system to have. Another alternative to democracy is to have a government but such that it is answerable to no one but itself. This is a dictatorship... either benign or tyrannical. But because most dictatorships tend towards tyranny over time this is not a suitable system. Democracy is the only means by which we can get freedom but then we must choose between either fptp or pr. The advantage of pr is that people can choose to vote for not only the two main parties but also any one of a number of smaller parties. The purpose of democracy is to reduce the size of the (necessary) government but if democracy is not able to work effectively then the government will get too big. Fptp is a repudiation of the principles of democracy where power is shared. If we can choose from between only two parties it means that the electorate is effectively required to 'join' one of these parties. With pr there is no such obligation and the country is free to join no such party... and instead be governed by a coalition. To govern ourselves is to have no government so in that sense we can even think of pr as a type of anarchy. It is not possible to have more freedom in a society than with proportional representation.

Labour have an obligation to introduce pr

Unlike the Tories... Labour have an obligation to make sure the voting system is fair and proportional. The reason for the exclusion of the Tories in this stipulation is that democracy is the means by which the people are able to constrain socialism. Because the Tories are not generally seen as a socialist party it is (perhaps) redundant to criticise them for their position on fptp. But Labour are a socialist party and their mandate for economic intervention comes from elections. If these elections are unfair then Labour do not have a mandate for their actions.

Politicians have an obligation to support democracy

Support for fptp by the mainstream parties is a form of 'partyism' whereby these parties do not feel the need to extend their democratic privilege to other parties. It means they discriminate against the other parties. This is not such a contradiction for the left because they are generally seen as inclusive parties which means that even though they are discriminating against other parties in their support for fptp they are still inclusive. We might not expect a communist party to be democratic. A right-wing party on the other hand would understand that to seek parliamentary power without a democratic mandate is illegitimate. It is more offensive and inconsistent for the right to support fptp and reject democracy than the left. If the right are more liberal-minded then it doesn't make sense for them to seek office without seeking a democratic mandate. Communists assume no one is antagonistic (and would not worry about being democratically accountable) but people on the right generally do not hold that view... they would not seek office without being democratically accountable. The illegitimacy of fptp is more of a threat to the position of the right because the left do not concern themselves with being accountable. (The left see themselves as benign so they have less reason to justify their power.) The right (unlike the left) have a problem if they seek to justify their power on the basis of a fptp election. Political parties have an obligation not to be partyist (anti-democracy) and to favour proportional representation.

Democracy enables people to reject the left

The purpose of democracy is to hold the government to account and to prevent it being too (economically) interventionist. In this respect we assume that all politicians are aspirant interventionists and socialists even if they claim otherwise. If we do not fear the government then there would be no reason to have democracy at all. In a democracy we assume all parties are to the left of the voter so the left-right dynamic which is often referred to in a fptp system is not true. There is no right-wing in a democratic system all political parties are to the left of the voter. In a fptp duopoly one of the main parties might claim to be right wing and to offer voters an opportunity to block the left. But this can never be true because all (democratic) political parties are leftist. Since all political parties tend to leftism it is best to have a proportional system whereby voters can choose smaller and smaller parties to represent them. This means that voters (if they want their vote to be meaningful) are not compelled to vote for the least leftist of two leftist parties. They can vote for the least leftist of many leftist parties. Giving voters a choice of more than two political parties means that they are able to reject not only one but many different forms of tyranny and leftism.

First past the post is bad for everyone

Tories (falsely) assume first past the post is a suitable democratic system which will deliver what the people want. But the people rely on being able to use democracy to hold the state to account. If they do not have full democracy this can lead to interventionist governments and despotism. Assuming the Tories are in favour of free markets and against socialism they have made a false assumption in thinking that fptp is suitable... even though pr would (directly) hurt their party. The interests of their party would be served more efficiently with a fully democratic system. It is a false assumption for people on the right (often Tories) to assume that fptp is acceptable.

Democracy is a right-wing philosophy

Democracy is the only means by which the state can be repelled by the people who are the electorate. But with fptp (and not pr) we know that people tend to vote for the two main established parties because otherwise their vote doesn't count for anything and will be ignored. If the two main parties are 'Labour' and the 'Conservative' party then Labour tend to be on the centre-left and the Conservatives on the centre-right. So a right-wing voter will want to prevent Labour from getting into power and so they might vote for the Tories. But the problem with this is that doing so protects the fptp system which is undemocratic. Socialists favour government (economic) intervention which means that they have reasons to favour first past the post. So by voting for the Tory party right-wing voters help to reinforce the fptp system. (And by extension socialism.) The only means to 'break' the system is to reject both of the dominant fptp parties and instead vote for a party which supports proportional representation. To vote for the fptp parties is to collude with the interventionist government system. If to be right-wing is to be against government intervention then only democrats can be said to be right-wing and no right-wing person would vote for either of the fptp parties. To vote for either of the fptp parties makes someone compliant with the state and not right-wing.

The Tories are not anarchists so pr is preferable

There is a line of thinking whereby fptp is preferable because full democracy will lead to big government and socialism. The argument is that because anarchy is statelessness (and is to be desired) and in contrast democracy is associated with government then it is better to have as little government as possible. But this doesn't work as a defence of fptp. The reason for this is that fptp remains a form of democracy. A government is formed under fptp even if the intention is to encourage anarchy. People will vote in their best interests which doesn't always mean they will comply and pick the mainstream anti-state party. For fptp to 'work' as an anti-state mechanism it requires that voters are sympathetic to this restriction of their liberties and have empathy for the view that full democracy is bad and that anarchy is good. But even if people think that anarchy is good it is unlikely that they will be willing to endorse either one of the mainstream parties willingly. The Tories are not the anarchist party... they do have policies which they implement so the argument that the purpose of fptp is to constrain socialism (and support anarchism) is spurious. Only anarchists would be able to (consistently) argue that to restrict democracy for the benefit of their own party is good and constrains socialism. But since the Tories are not anarchists this argument doesn't hold. Only if the Tories are anarchists does it (might it) make sense to have fptp... in all other cases fptp hinders democracy and freedom. Unless the Tories are anarchists pr is preferable.

Fptp governments don't like democracy

The government is acting in an oppressive manner if it does not enable people to have full democracy. If the government does not give to the people full proportional elections then it is acting in an oppressive manner no matter what its other policies. Fptp is a form of socialism and so we can say that any government formed under fptp is socialist. There can be no liberal governments that are formed under fptp. Fptp ensures no government is liberal. Only with proportional representation is it possible to say that the government is a liberal government. The electorate have not been given democracy and the chance to veto government legislation if they have only been given a fptp voting process. Only with pr can it be said that the people have been given the opportunity to veto the government. To have been given democracy is to have been given the opportunity to refuse. Without pr we have not been given the opportunity to refuse the government. The governed have not given their consent if they have not been given a proportional election. Only governments formed using a proportional system (can claim to) have the consent of the people. No government using fptp has the consent of the people... proportionality is a requirement to have consent. There can be no consent without proportionality. If the government wanted to make sure it has a mandate (and give the people a voice) it would use pr... the fact that it uses fptp suggests that they do not want to give to the people the opportunity to refuse.

A socialist is someone who rejects democracy

Democracy is the defence mechanism of the people against the actions and aggression of the state. Democracy is bad for aggressive states. Only socialists have something to fear from (more) democracy. Socialists alone dislike democracy and no one else... to be against democracy is proof of socialism. Anarchists are not opposed to democracy because it confers no legitimacy to the state. An anarchist has no reason to object to pr in the context of fptp only in the context of outright anarchy... which is not the case. Only socialists object to the replacement of fptp by pr.

Democracy makes socialism more difficult

Part of the problem with first past the post is that the parties do not reflect a 'left' and 'right' of conventional politics. If it is true that the parties are each to the left and right respectively of the population then there could be an argument that this system is suitable. But that is not the case the two parties converge to the point where they have more in common with each other than they do with the country. The electorate are trapped into choosing a party they (mildly) prefer rather than one which represents them. (They are motivated to block the worse of the two options.) Without proportional representation there is no true representation. With pr it is possible for voters to block many different political ideologies in favour of the one they choose... not just one out of two. With pr there is certainty that we will be represented and that government has afforded us the most freedom possible. With fptp there is no such certainty and we rely on the two parties to be merciful and to not tax and regulate the economy to too great an extent. With pr freedom is certain whereas with fptp it is merely possible. If there is a difference in outcome between the two systems it is that with pr there is more freedom from the government because that is what democracy achieves. Democracy is the mechanism by which the state is held accountable. To not want democracy is to not want the state to be held to account. Democracy is bad for the state but only to the extent that it is bad for the socialist and communist policies. It is not bad for the defensive property-protecting elements of the state which would only receive more of a mandate from the introduction of pr. Pr isn't socialist because democracy is bad (not good) for socialism. There is no form of socialism perpetrated by the state which is a result of democracy only... the state itself wants to act in a socialist way and it is from democracy which it receives its mandate. Without the state wanting to implement socialism democracy (on its own) has no power to do so. Socialism is caused by the state not democracy... which is why we need more of it. Socialism is not the result of democracy alone so we can say that democracy is either neutral or liberating. Democracy enables the people to provide a veto to the actions of the government and if there is more democracy this results in that veto extending further making it more difficult for the state to implement its agenda. Democracy makes socialism difficult which is why pr is preferable to fptp because it makes socialism more difficult.

First past the post is not strong government

First past the post does not produce strong government. Fptp makes it easy for political parties to gain a unilateral majority (without having to go into coalition) but that is not the same as strong government. Strong government means that the government has the support and the consent of the people for which it needs to be as fully democratic as possible. Without proportional representation we cannot say that we have strong government. Strong government requires proportional representation.

Without pr there can be no property rights

The state has no right to exist if it is not elected via proportional representation. And since property rights are synonymous with the state then we cannot have property rights without proportional representation.

Proportional representation is a form of capitalism

Capitalism where there is a state is good because it gives workers and consumers choice. It gives (landless) workers choice where to work and it gives consumers choice in what to buy. Choice is by definition good for the same reasons that capitalism is good. So then it makes sense for people who are in favour of capitalism to also be in favour of pr because pr gives voters more choice. Pr is a form of capitalism applied to democracy. It is inconsistent for people who favour capitalism not to be in favour of proportional representation.

The left are in favour of fptp

As far as the state and democracy is concerned we are left with three reasonable positions. We can either be a pr or fptp statist or an anarchist. If we assume anarchy is not a reasonable position because we require property rights then we are left with pr and fptp statism. Since fptp makes it more difficult for people to be represented and socialism derives from a lack of representation we can say that those who support fptp are on the (socialist) left. People who support pr are in favour enabling the population to reduce the size of the government in which case they are on the right. Anarchists apart... the (progressive) right are in favour of pr and the (anti-progressive) left favour fptp.

The state have an obligation to provide democracy

Sometimes people don't like to look after themselves. For example many times when communism has ended there have been those who were upset that the government is now no longer going to look after them. And it is the same way with first-past-the-post. The two parties which emerge in a fptp system have become understood and familiar to many of the voting public to such an extent that if this duopoly is threatened people will complain. Just as people complained when communism was abolished. People like the security and familiarity of the fptp system. People fear freedom whether it is freedom from communism or freedom from fptp. But we do not have a right to pander to our (irrational) fears where politics is concerned because it affects not only ourselves but everyone else. We do not have the right to deprive someone of freedom from communism simply because we ourselves prefer it. We have no right to make someone else a slave because we like being a slave. And so it is with fptp. We do not have the right to deprive other people of a proportional voting system simply because we ourselves are content with fptp and do not want change. We are owed by the government a fair and proportional voting system otherwise the government has no justification to exist. The government is illegitimate if it does not provide a proportional system. There is no government which provides a fptp voting system because such a government is illegitimate. Only pr governments are legitimate. Proportional representation is the only legitimate form of government. Since no government is able to seek a (legitimate) mandate from first past the post we can say that fptp doesn't exist as a valid form of democracy. No government is legitimised by fptp.

Authoritarianism is not left-wing (it is right-wing)

A big part of the problem with modern politics in fptp countries is not that people necessarily hold false beliefs but that our shared picture of the world is wrong. We use concepts such as 'left' and 'right' which are (at best) loosely-defined and fail to accurately describe reality. Since the right are opposed to a proportional voting system we can say that they are economically authoritarian just like communists. But if the right are communists this means that the left-right dichotomy fails to be accurately descriptive because (now) both parties share economic authoritarianism. Rather than to shift these fptp-rightists to the left it is better to shift them to the right because the voting system is now the defining characteristic politically. So we can now say that any economic authoritarian is of the right which means the left must split between economic authoritarians (who now move over to the right) and economic liberals. This means that communism and socialism ceases to be considered a left-wing ideology instead it becomes a facet of the right. To be communist is right-wing. Socialism is not a left-wing ideology. Communism and socialism (since they are both authoritarian ideologies) are right-wing. People on the left are liberals and reject authoritarianism and first pas the post.

The right are communists if they support fptp

Let's assume political interests fall roughly into two (familiar) categories: Left and Right and that those on the left are broadly supportive of government intervention in general and those on the right are opposed. Since we know that democracy is the means by which the electorate can hold the state to account and constrain the expansion of the state then it is clear that it is consistent for the left to have no objection to fptp. The right, on the other hand, have less reason to be supportive of fptp because if there is more democracy the state will be smaller. The only other possibility is that those on the right who reject pr in favour of fptp see themselves as anarchists who do not want any state at all. Since most people on the right are in favour of property rights which can only come from the state we can deduce that the real reason for the repudiation of pr by the right is that they are concerned at the problems democracy will cause the state. Democracy is a problem for the state which means the right are defending communism when they defend fptp or they are anarchists. Since the right are not anarchists by definition (anarchists have no affiliation) we can say that the right (if they oppose pr in favour of fptp) are in reality communists... whether they realise this or not.

There is no alternative to democracy

Part of the problem with the first-past-the-post system of voting is the name itself which sounds as though it is 'individualist' and even Libertarian. We (opponents of fptp) do not object that the first person wins so it might be thought that there is no complaint to be made. But the problem is that it is only the first who enters parliament. There are other candidates to consider... those who finished second and third for example. Other successful non-winning candidates also deserve representation if the first does. Since it is only the winning candidate which assumes power then it makes sense for other aspirant politicians not to enter in competition with the established parties but instead to do deals with the incumbents. If representation is given to losing candidates this incentive disappears. If only the first candidate wins it makes sense for candidates and voters alike to gravitate towards the emergent parties. The emergence of two main parties leads to the same problems which are caused by a lack of democracy entirely. It means that the government has insufficient constraints on its actions. There is less reason for the government or either of the leading parties to be conservative in their actions... which inevitably leads to entitlements for the government and public sector in a similar way to that seen under communism. Fptp makes it easy for the government to do things without a democratic mandate which is to say... to do things which the people do not want and are undemocratic. Democracy constrains the government and first past the post makes it easy for the government to be undemocratic. Proportional representation is more democratic which is worse for the elements of the state which seek to profit from their position. Democracy weakens the bad elements of the state which is a good thing and so more democracy is better. A deficit of democracy means that the state can get away with things it would not be able to if it requires the consent of the people. Democracy makes it (more) difficult for the state to get the consent of the people for their actions. Which is why more democracy is better.

Without government there can be no property rights

Without some form of government there can be no identifiable property rights... (property rights rely on the government) but if there is insufficient democracy in the form of first past the post this makes it very difficult for people to protect their property. In a sense without full democracy the government becomes tyrannical which means the property rights of the people are threatened. For example we can think of a communist system as being one in which there are no recognisable property rights. It is a contradiction for the state to recognise property in a communist system because by its nature property must be private (and apart from the state) to be meaningful. Without private property there is no property. And so democracy is required to establish (private) property. Only if there is true democracy can people protect themselves and their property from other people and the state.

Tories who oppose pr are not right-wing

Only the left is damaged by the replacement of fptp with pr but that is not to say that only the Labour party is damaged. The Tory party is also left-wing to the extent that it will be affected by pr. Proportional representation is a threat to the main political parties because it offers voters a true choice which means they can reject the aggressive aspects of government which they do not like. The aspects of government threatened by pr are by definition left-wing and undemocratic which means that (since they are threatened by pr) the Tories are to some degree left-wing. Any political party which is threatened in any way by the introduction of pr can be said to be left-wing. To be left-wing is to be powerful as a result of the fptp voting system. Fptp enables left-wing parties to thrive. Anarchy is not left-wing and neither is democracy... only totalitarianism (of the three possible forms of government) is left-wing which means that (in the absence of anarchy) democracy is bad for the left. Democracy is always a threat to the left which means that only the left have legitimate reasons to oppose pr. Democracy is a threat only to the left. The true (Libertarian) right have nothing to fear from pr only those who consider themselves to be on the right but who are in fact leftists. Only the left have something to fear from the introduction of pr but this can include members of the Conservative party.

Democracy is better than any other system

Democracy is a good thing. Government is essential otherwise we have no property rights... but it is important to constrain the government otherwise totalitarianism can result. This means that we must have democracy since there is no other means by which the government can be effectively constrained and so if we want property rights we must have democracy. The only rational alternative to anarchy is democracy. Without democracy there is either totalitarianism or anarchy and an absence of property rights. If we want accountable property rights then we can only have democracy.

First past the post elections should be illegal

The nature of the first-past-the-post voting system is that (due to the strength of Duverger's law) over time two dominant parties will emerge. This means that because of tactical voting people will have less choice in who they are governed by and who represents them. This loss of democracy is very serious because whilst government is important to maintain property rights... if there is not sufficient government accountability this can lead to an aggressive and intrusive state. We need the government to control and define property rights but this means (by definition) the government can be aggressive because it itself defines what is and isn't aggressive. So this means that democracy is both necessary and very important. If there is not enough democracy (as with fptp) this means that an intrusive and aggressive government can emerge. So we must always have proportional representation and nothing else. We have a right to proportional representation if there is a government and to arrange any other kind of electoral system is a crime. It is a crime to arrange an election under anything other than proportional representation. First past the post elections are criminal.

First past the post is likely to remain

First past the post is good for the government so it will likely stay... since it is the government who decide these things. Whether or not the people prefer pr is academic because (if people keep voting for the two 'government' parties) it is a decision for the state and we cannot expect (even the benevolent state) to act in its worst interests. The state will protect itself which is why it will choose to retain first past the post.

Property rights require proportional representation

Government is required to safeguard our property rights but government must be democratic otherwise it has no mandate. This means that government (and property rights) can only exist if it is elected via proportional representation... since fptp is not democratic and does not provide a mandate to the government. Without government there are no property rights but without pr there is no government because there is no legitimacy... so we need pr to get property rights. Government without (true) democracy has no mandate and is invalid but fptp doesn't work so cannot be said to be democratic and will provide no mandate. Government under fptp is invalid so we can say that pr is the only means by which there can be (government and) property rights. We cannot have property rights if there is not proportional representation.

Pr is the only route to freedom

With proportional representation people vote for a party which closely matches their beliefs because they have an equal chance of gaining representation with a small party. This means that the party representing the voter closely matches the needs and interests of the individual voter. The voter is able to act in a 'defensive' manner by choosing someone who will oppose oppressive laws against the voter. With fptp in contrast the voter (realistically) has only two dominant parties to choose from. This means that, rather than vote for a party to represent the voter's interests, a party is chosen purely to oppose the opposition. Voters are voting to 'bash' the other party rather than to promote their chosen party. This is the nature of tactical voting... it means that we would rather vote for someone else entirely but because out choices are limited and we want to keep the other party from power we must allow a certain party to gain power merely to stop the alternative. It is a system which creates a false sense of poverty in the voter. With pr we do not need to 'bash' the two main parties we can simply vote for the best candidate to reflect our interests. To choose the least offence of the two main parties is bad for democracy and freedom because it enables both of the main parties to predate on the electorate to varying degrees. It offers voters no mechanism to express a preference within the parameters of their chosen party. To be forced to choose between two different forms of communism is not democracy. We cannot properly defend ourselves from the state if we have no option but to choose one of the two main parties. Democracy does not work if it is not proportional. To be free we need democracy but it also needs to be a form of democracy which works... so we need pr. Without pr we cannot be free.

Pr would give us more freedom than fptp

Without the state there are no property rights... only an opinion. To have definitive (objective) property rights requires the state and so we can say that to have freedom (since freedom depends on property rights) requires government. Since government is required for freedom then we need to make sure the government does not exploit its position in the name of socialism or communism... and to prevent this we have democracy. But if the democratic system chosen is not proportional then the same problems caused by no democracy at all can be evident. We have democracy to prevent socialism (and communism) but with fptp we do not have enough control over parliament. Pr is more powerful against socialism and communism than first past the post. Democracy prevents socialism and so we need the most democratic system possible to minimise socialism and maximise freedom. First past the post gives us some freedom from socialism (and communism) but pr would give us more.

Socialism is caused by a lack of democracy

If there is not enough democracy the deficit (of political power) goes to the state and not to the people. Full democracy is preferable to partial democracy. Full democracy is anarchy with property rights whereas partial democracy is property rights but with an added element of government socialism. Socialism (by the government) thrives on a lack of democracy. The more democracy there is the less socialism there will be.

Democracy is good but fptp doesn't go far enough

In any democracy we are governed by the electorate which means that the voting system in use is the mechanism by which the individual is protected from the rest of the country. If the voting system is effective it makes it difficult for the electorate to be aggressive towards the individual. The best voting system is one which protects the individual from the electorate... which thwarts the electorate in attacking the individual. This protects individuals and minorities alike since minorities are protected if the individual is protected. The problem with fptp is that it tends to result in a two-party system which means that the individual is subject to one of the (socialist) mainstream parties. With pr even if the voters want to impose socialism on the country... the mechanism by which power is allocated makes this very difficult. Pr protects the voters from themselves by being inherently anarchistic. Fptp fails to do this... it provides 'big government' in the form of a two-party state. Democracy (and the state) gives people property rights but if the voting system is not fully proportional this mechanism is not able to function and people are left vulnerable to the state. Democracy is a force for good in civilising people and providing a framework whereby people can protect themselves from each other. But with fptp this framework breaks down. Democracy (and by extension government) is good because it provides property rights and freedoms but without pr this mechanism fails to operate properly.

The government does not provide freedom

We can think of democracy as being an absolute good... it is not the driving force behind government it is what constrains government. Even if there is no government democracy is still good it means nothing other than choice. Democracy can exist without government. If democracy is freedom then democracy will be bad for government because government is concerned with people being accountable to the state (and not being free). The state does not provide freedom we get that from nature. Anarchy is freedom and so proportional representation is preferable to first past the post since it constrains the state and will therefore give us more freedom. Democracy is good if the state is the opposite of freedom.

First past the post protects the government

People who reject proportional representation are either people who know that democracy is bad for the government and do not want to see the government challenged or they are anarchists who want no government at all. They (people who oppose pr) are either anarchists or do not want the government to be challenged by democracy. But anarchists have nothing (practical) to lose by exposing the government to more democracy. It cannot be said to harm their (our) cause because even if voting reform is successful people will deduce its success is its freedom. Anarchists have nothing to fear from pr making the government look legitimate. The success of any system will be amount of freedom which it delivers. In fact the anti-state argument will be much more widespread and familiar due to the voting process. Anarchists have nothing to fear from pr so the only people with a legitimate complaint are people who want to protect the government from democracy. But this is a form of tyranny so we can say that only tyrants (and confused anarchists) have something to fear from pr. Pr hurts no one but tyrants.

Proportional representation is a form of rebellion

It should not be possible for people who do not agree with democracy and proportional democracy to gain access to power. It should not be possible to be a politician and not advocate proportional representation. All politicians should be in favour of pr. No one should vote for candidates who are not in favour of pr... only pr-advocates should ever get elected. To vote for someone who does not advocate pr is to vote for someone who does not want to be constrained by democracy and does not seek a mandate from the electorate. This means that you are voting for someone who doesn't want to seek a mandate in the future... they want the government to be undemocratic. It makes no sense to vote for anyone other than a democrat. (Voting for a fptp-advocate is similar to failing to resist a criminal.) It is logical (and rebellious) to withhold votes from people who do not support proportional representation.

People are not interested in prop. representation

Voters don't seem to mind first past the post... which would suggest that they like the government and fear the anarchy of pr. In which case (even under pr) it would be perfectly possible for them to get the socialism they desire. Pr is liberal only if the voters are liberal and if they tolerate fptp they are not liberal and so pr would make no difference. If fptp prevents freedom then people are free to reject it so we can assume the government under either system is roughly as large as people want it to be. First past the post doesn't constrain freedom because if people want freedom they would reject fptp democratically under fptp. Fptp is not resistant to people wanting pr. Fptp is not stable in the face of arguments for pr... if people want pr they can easily get it by voting for an appropriate party. Fptp is stable only if people are more concerned about losing their 'tactical' influence than they are concerned about registering a preference for pr. Fptp doesn't stop the introduction of pr... the truth is that if there is fptp it is because people tolerate it.

Freedom is not dangerous so pr is preferable

Democracy is good for the people if it is bad for them to be owned by the government and have no choice in their destiny. The only alternative to democracy is outright government ownership because anarchy is democracy. Democracy is freedom and democracy is essential if we are to be free. The ultimate form of democracy is statelessness. A lack of democracy is only good if slavery and government ownership is good (or just necessary) but it is not good (or necessary) so pr is preferable to fptp. It is better not to be a slave and so it is better to have pr and not fptp. Fptp is good only if the people are dangerous and must not be freed from the government but instead protected from themselves. Freedom is not dangerous (by definition) so pr is preferable.

Democracy is good for the people (and bad for govt)

First past the post makes it more difficult than pr to unseat the incumbent which is good (obviously) for the incumbent but not for anyone else. It provides a stable form of government which is not fully democratic. (As no government is... everyone should be able to refuse the government at all times if it is said to be fully democratic.) Democracy is the means by which the populace is able to reduce government interference in their lives so fptp is good only if it is good for the government to impose itself on the people without their consent. Fptp is good if government is good. (Government is always a lack of democracy.) No anarchist supports fptp. Fptp is good only for the government.

Democracy is preferable to communism

Proportional representation is preferable not because voters are infallible but because government is worse. Democracy is better than its absence (where there is a government). Only statists like pr... anarchists prefer to have no state at all but of the statists those who prefer pr are those who prefer a smaller state. If there is a democratic state then it will be larger with fptp than with pr. Pr (like all democracy) reduces the size of the state. Some anarchists might perhaps be indifferent between different types of government such as communism and small-state Libertarianism and for them it is consistent to be indifferent between fptp and pr. For anarchists who distinguish between communism and small-state Libertarianism it is illogical for them to support fptp.

Fptp is bad if people like freedom

Voters generally want freedom which is why democracy (and pr) is preferable. Pr is more democratic than fptp which means pr is better not because democracy in itself is good but because people like freedom.

Fptp is good if the voters are to the left of Labour

Duverger's law proves that (to most people) the government is not magic. If the government is (held to be) magic people would not vote tactically out of fear of the opposition party... they would just vote in a naive manner and not be concerned about the outcome. The existence of tactical voting indicates that the government is mortal in which case we can say that fptp is a problem. If the government is not magic then taxation is (still) theft by definition. We know from the prevalence of tactical voting that only a small number of people are not anarchists and think the government is magic... the rest vote tactically. Duverger's law proves that most people are not sympathetic to the two government parties... tactical voting is evidence that most people are anarchists in which case democracy is preferable. Fptp is not a problem only if most of the voters are statists... but we know from the way they vote that most people want to get rid of the government. But even if this is not true and most voters are statists... it is hard to see how fptp is an obstacle to their socialism. If the voters are statists then both of the fptp parties (including Labour) would be to their right for fptp to be an obstacle. If the voters are to the left of Labour then fptp prevents tyranny by democracy... otherwise it prevents people who want a small government from getting what they want.

Fptp is good if the government is magic

If the government is good (but not wonderful*) then it has nothing to fear from proportional representation. If it is bad then it should keep fptp. People who like fptp support the government doing bad things. People who do not like (even) the government doing bad things do not like fptp. People who do not like taxation (theft made special by democracy) do not like fptp. Aggression is not validated by democracy so fptp is bad. If taxation suddenly becomes good when it is perpetrated by the (magic) government then fptp might not be bad... but those are the only circumstances in which fptp is benign. If taxation is not theft (and the government is magic) then fptp is not a problem. If tax is theft (and the government is normal and not special in any way) then fptp is bad.

*Wonderful in this context means (to describe) a type of infatuation. The word is being used sarcastically.

Fptp is good for bad governments

The choice of first past the post means that the state does not seek the most democratic possible mandate... it is satisfied with only partial democracy. But if the intention of the state is to help people then it would make sense to have the fullest possible mandate. (And to have pr.) The existence of the government only makes sense if people consent to it. Government makes no sense if it is not democratic. If the purpose of the government is to help people then it makes sense to have the most democratic system possible... which is pr. If the government is not to help people... but for other reasons... then fptp is effective because it stops people being free of a harmful government. Fptp is good for the government if the government is bad. If government is good then it makes sense to have pr... if government is bad then it makes sense (for the government) to reduce the extent to which people can refuse it. If people want to be free (which we can assume otherwise there is no point in democracy) then pr is the best system for them... only if we (as the government) do not want the people to be able to free themselves from the government is fptp desirable. Fptp is good only for the government and only if the government is bad. If the government is good then pr is not a problem for it (good governments are not offended by pr) it is delivering what the people want (tolerate) even without full democratic accountability. If the government is not good then pr would be a problem for it because people could refuse what it is doing. Fptp enables the government to continue doing things which hurt the population.

The only kind of government is fptp

We can think of fptp as being somewhere between outright (proportional) democracy and having no democracy at all. It is kind of a compromise. But if the government doesn't like democracy it has no obligation to offer us even fptp. To be consistent the government should provide either full democracy (pr) or no democracy at all. Since the government doesn't provide pr we can deduce that it is against democracy in which case there should not even be fptp but no democracy at all. But in that case there would be no government. The governments gets its mandate only from democracy so (to be consistent) the government should either introduce pr or collapse. It makes no sense for there to be fptp alone. It would be better for there not to even be fptp... it would be better if the government seeks no mandate at all from the people. If it is possible for the government to survive without giving people full democracy then there is no reason for it to give any democracy and it should cancel (even) fptp elections... to be consistent. If the government thinks democracy is bad it should cancel even fptp elections... otherwise it should introduce full pr elections. To hold fptp elections is to make a partial and not full concession to democracy. The government survives only because of fptp... pr is a kind of anarchy and if there is no democracy at all then there would be no government so it is only because of the existence of fptp that there can be a government.

Labour win because the Tories support fptp

First past the post means that Labour are guaranteed to win most elections. Fptp is not symmetrical... people favour the centre-left party (if Labour can be described as that) in a fptp duopoly. The Tories impose unfair and aggressive fptp on the nation in the hope that they will get elected (we presume) but the amusing reality is that fptp guarantees a win for Labour. Tory refusal to introduce pr results in a win for Labour. Labour win because the Tories refuse to introduce proportional representation.

First past the post is anarchy

An undemocratic government has no mandate. To have a mandate the government must be elected democratically... if there is no democracy there is no government (governments require a mandate) and there is then anarchy... so in a sense a lack of democracy is not a bad thing. If we can say that to have no democracy is to have anarchy then a lack of democracy is good. It is bad to have democracy if democracy gives a mandate to the government. (Which enables the government to exist.) We can think of fptp as a two-party tyranny which is not democratic and in that case fptp is anarchy... since it gives no mandate to the government. Fptp is anarchy because it is not democratic and democracy is government.

Communism is unpopular

The purpose of democracy is to constrain the size of the state. If there is no democracy at all and a government or leader is able to have absolute unchecked power then there is no limit to the tyranny which might result. Democracy constrains government. With the first past the post system of elections there is generally the emergence of a two-party system as a result of Duverger's law. What this means is that the mechanism which acts to reduce the size of the state is diminished. Democracy relies on choice and if choice is diminished in this way then democracy ceases to act to reduce the size of the state and two statist parties can emerge and control parliament. Since there is less democratic pressure on these parties both will be pro-government and left wing. Fptp encourages the emergence of two centre-left parties. Pr would enable voters to reject both of the centre-left parties in favour of a non-aggressive low taxation party. If the opposite of socialist is right-wing then pr enables right-wing parties to get into government. Fptp excludes (liberal and) right-wing parties from gaining access to the government.

Fptp is fine if either of the main parties is anarchist

People who defend fptp do so because they either know that pr would reduce the size of the state and do not want that to happen... or they falsely consider one of the two emergent fptp parties to be anarchists. People who support fptp are either ignorant anarchists (who think that one of the main parties is anarchist) or they are are not anarchists and genuinely prefer the state to remain. (And know that pr is bad for the state.) They are willing to tolerate one of the two dominant fptp parties which means they tolerate (or even support) the state... provided not one of the fptp parties is anarchist or they falsely think that one is. People who support pr can only do so because they do not like state aggression. (Democracy prevents state aggression.) If neither (or even not both) of the two main fptp parties is aggressive then there is no strong reason to reject fptp. Fptp fails because both of the two main parties is usually statist. People who like fptp are not anarchists... unless the fptp party which they support can be considered to be an anarchist party. If neither of the fptp parties is anarchist then fptp-supporters are either statists or of the (false) view that at least one of the fptp parties is anarchist. If neither fptp party is anarchist then pr is preferable.

First past the post is ineffective

In a previous blogpost I made the comparison between first-past-the-post voting and Sophie's choice whereby we are given a choice between two unpalatable options. Whilst there is some truth to this comparison it is flawed in certain respects. The difference in nature between Sophie's choice and fptp is that with fptp we want to retain neither of the options available. With Sophie's choice she likes both of the options and so to (choose to) reject one of them is painful. With fptp we are forced into retain one of a pair of things we do not like.

We can deduce from this that people do not like either of the fptp parties. (So it would make sense for an anti-statist to be in favour of replacing this system.) If a voter tolerates (or even positively likes) one of the two parties then fptp is not offensive for them. If both of the parties are aggressive then we have a problem for the voter. It is not so bad to have fptp if we are a country in peril from an external threat. In that situation we simply choose the most impressive of the candidates. If the threat is internal and the threat is the government itself then fptp fails because it offers us only two choices both of which (will likely*) share the same problem of internal aggression. If both of the parties on offer are equally aggressive in terms of (for example) taxation then fptp offers no choice to the voter and enables the government to be tyrannical. As far as internal threats are concerned fptp is not very effective at constraining government because both of the two main parties will tend to be similar in terms of taxation. Fptp is ineffective against taxation... and since taxation defines government we can say that fptp is ineffective... against government. Fptp doesn't work because tax is government.

*If one party is not aggressive then fptp is not a problem.

Only proportional representation is not aggressive

Anything other than using proportional representation is aggressive where elections are concerned. First past the post is an aggressive attack on peace and security. Only proportional representation is not aggressive where voting systems are concerned.

Fptp is a violation of the rights of the electorate

No government has a right to seek a mandate via first past the post... proportional representation is the only legitimate electoral system a government can use. No state has a right to use fptp.

First past the post is a form of insanity

It is true that democracy is good

First past the post prevents freedom which means that people who like fptp are people who instinctively dislike freedom. Whether or not someone likes fptp is a good barometer to find out if they are liberal or socialist. Socialists like fptp because it prevents freedom. Pr is good for capitalism and the free market... fptp is good for people who are communists and want to oppress freedom. It is true that pr protects capitalism and prevents tyranny. Democracy is the only thing which protects the people from tyranny by the government... if there is a government. So a democratic system lacking in proportionality will be vulnerable to socialism.

First past the post prevents freedom

First past the post removes the option typically available to voters to choose to have no government at all. (It is possible to vote for an anarchist.) If one of only two political parties can win it means that both of these parties will be statist parties. Statists will inevitably control the two dominant parties in a fptp system. To give voters pr is to enable them to choose to have no government. Pr gives people the option to reject government... which fptp does not. Proportionality can mean anarchy but fptp always means statism. There is no possibility of freedom if there is not proportional representation. Only pr offers freedom. There is no chance for freedom with fptp.

Fptp forces voters into a kind of Sophie's choice

Most people do not want to be controlled by the government so we can assume democracy is anti-government and liberating. If it is not then it is redundant. To the extent that democracy is not redundant it is liberating. The problem with fptp is that people who want to protect capitalism must support the Tories which is impossible for moral people. Fptp forces people to allow Labour to win or be immoral. (To vote for the Tories is immoral.) Pr means that moral people can protect capitalism. Religious people like fptp because it forces people who are liberals and who reject communism to support a party which tolerates religion. Fptp forces anti-socialist people to vote for a religious (immoral) political party. Only religious people prefer fptp to pr. To not reject religion is immoral so fptp is liked only by immoral people. Religious people find fptp amusing because it forces good people to choose between communism and religion. We can think of this as a kind of 'Sophie's Choice' where neither of the options given is palatable.

Libertarians prefer proportional representation

Any party that doesn't support pr and replacing fptp (where it exists) with pr is not a Libertarian party... or is stupid. Libertarians realise that if there is a government then the only thing to constrain it will be democracy. Libertarians realise that (unless anarchy is the alternative) democracy protects the individual and provides freedom. This means that all Libertarians prefer pr to fptp. To be a supporter of fptp is to be a socialist or a communist. All Libertarians support pr over fptp.

Only pr is offensive to the state

The only way to be free from the government is democracy and if there is not proportional democracy this means that it is easy for the government to interfere in people's lives. To be free from the government (in a democracy) we need to have pr. Without pr the government will be socialist and interfere in people's lives. Only proportional democracies are liberal democracies.

There is nothing wrong with democracy

The purpose of democracy is to reduce the size of the government consistent with the desires of the people. Democracy is the opposite of socialism... the ultimate form of democracy is when everyone has complete choice not only over the government but also over themselves. Since no one chooses to pay taxes by definition we can say that full democracy would be statelessness. The state arises due to a lack of democracy. Democracy is the antithesis of the state.

First past the post is insufficiently democratic to ensure freedom for the people from the state. The state is tyrannical because of a lack of democracy. Proportional representation maximises democracy (if there is a government) which means that pr provides the least amount of socialism and statism. Choice is the opposite of socialism which means that pr is the most liberal form of democracy and government. The smallest form of government is derived from a system of proportional representation. Since fptp is the opposite of pr it is also the opposite of liberalism so fptp is (tyranny and) socialism. Fptp is oppressive because it does not give people enough choice in choosing their representatives. Fptp is the most statist and least liberal voting system. It is not good for the people not to have democracy because this means socialism and communism not liberalism. The government does not provide freedom it provides the opposite. If there is less government there is more freedom (by definition) so pr is preferable.