First past the post is a myth

Fptp gives all the power to the largest party

We need ur (universal representation) because otherwise the largest party will get the entirety of the power which is populist. Without ur the largest party gets all the power which means minorities are ignored. Only the largest party can veto laws and not everybody... fptp reduces the democratic veto to only the largest party.

Universal representation is a better term than pr

Universal representation is a better name to use than 'proportional' representation... the term universal representation immediately suggests we are concerned not with the government but with the people.

Universal in this context means not to exclude anyone but to include all the voters so then we are not concerned with the government and how it is perceived... we are concerned with the people and how they are represented.

First past the post is only good for the tories

It is selfish for the right-wing party alone to reject pr

In a fptp duopoly it is the centre-right (cr) not centre-left (cl) party which is more obnoxious in opposing pr because to do so is inconsistent with their other strongly-held beliefs. We assume the centre-right party prefers small government and the centre-left party is in favour of big government. We are aware that pr reduces the size of government because choice is good and small government is good... and so since the cr party advocates small government it is inconsistent for them to oppose reform unless they value their party above their country. Unless the cr party are selfish they have no reason to oppose pr. The cl party has legitimate reasons to reject pr because they are genuinely opposed to choice and freedom so to be in favour of fptp for them is not selfish in itself only in the broader context. It is selfish for the cr party to reject pr but not the cl party.

Pr is very similar to anarchy and direct democracy

Direct democracy is like organised anarchy with no presidents because people are able to vote directly on laws. Proportional representation (pr) is preferable to fptp because is it more like direct democracy... if there are multiple representatives this means that minorities can find representation and the problem of presidentialism is diminished. Pr is better than fptp because it is more like anarchy and direct democracy. If there are representatives then the greater their number the more like direct democracy the system becomes. To make representative democracy less authoritarian we should have a greater number of representatives in each seat. Tactical voting is evidence that the voting system is not direct. Pr means you can trust your representative to vote as you would vote... with fptp we choose only the party closest to our views.

Democracy is illegitimate if it is not direct

Representative democracy should only be proportional and never fptp because this removes the protections afforded by democracy and leads to big government.

Fptp at least makes the government look bad

First past the post is conservative in that it fails to give either of the main parties a true mandate to enact their policies. If there is proportional representation and a party wins a convincing majority there is no thought that they have anything other than a true mandate. If there is first past the post there exists a sense that things might have been different under a true voting system. The main aim under fptp is to exclude the opposition which is more conservative than to gain power for its own sake. It is more convincing to win a majority under pr since there was no tactical reason to vote for your party. If you get a majority under pr then it is a true reflection of people's wishes but a majority under fptp has the understanding that it would not have been achieved without fptp. Fptp introduces an element of doubt as to the authenticity of the win.

If there is not anarchy there is a single leader

Government requires a leader... we have a choice between presidentialism (with a strong leader) or anrachy a government by many is meaningless and impossible. If there is not a president there is anarchy. The 'presidential' problem of fptp is not nullified by having many separate constituencies because of the emergence of tactical voting and loyalty to political parties. We can think of direct democracy and referendums as a lack of government... government is always presidential and representative we do not get a choice. Direct democracy gives a veto on all laws to the people whereas fptp removes that veto and puts all the power in the hands of one person. Fptp removes the democratic veto from the people and gives it to the (elected) leader. Fptp assumes it is better to have a leader to vote on our behalf and control everything than to be leaderless. It is the opposite of anarchy. There can never be a government (of many) there can only ever be a single governor or there is anarchy.

It is not important to change the voting system

We cannot force our will onto the politicians (to get them to change the system) because a change is not important. Nothing is important. Inaction is not a crime and so (since we cannot make others do something) it is not important that others act to make a change.

There should be no form of democracy

Since we have no right to impose ourselves on others we have no right to form a government. If we have no right to form a government then to discuss the differences between the various types of voting system is redundant. To have a view on the difference between fptp and pr is similar to holding a preference for a particular type of crime. We should have neither.

Fptp is no longer a viable option for the right

First past the post is no longer a viable strategy for the right. The reason for this is that fptp victories require collective voting for the main parties which is more difficult for the right. Voters on the right find it more difficult to align themselves with a single party whereas for the left this is not a problem because their political ideology requires it. Single-party (collective) voting is more difficult for the right which is why fptp favours the left. The best chance for the right in the future is a centre-right coalition under pr. The parties of the right will no longer win outright majorities due to the disintegration of a sense of duty in voting for the major centre-right party. The fall of religion means authoritarianism and allegiance to a single party are less prominent on the right which means pr is now the only chance for a right-wing government.

First past the post is good for the government

If lots of people have a veto on something happening then it is likely it will not happen. This is why committees are notorious for not getting anything done. Once consent is required from everyone or even a majority it is unlikely that an action or law will pass. This is why first past the post tends to result in more laws being passed... because fptp removes the veto inherent in other types of voting systems. Fptp gives all the power to the person whom comes first. This means that the winner is not encumbered by the rest of the electorate they have absolute power. If power is only given in proportion to the amount of votes received then coming first and being the most popular candidate does not necessarily give you the entirety of the power... for that you would require half of the vote. Fptp means absolute power is possible with less than half the vote. With pr this power would be possible (when no party gets more than half the vote) only if there is a coalition. With pr coalitions are required if no one gets half of the vote. The voting system makes a difference when not more than half of the vote is achieved by any party. Fptp removes the 'problems' of democracy from the party which wins but does not get half of the vote... it gives that party a boost so that a government can be formed. Fptp makes democracy more difficult for those who are opposed to the government. Fptp makes it easier for non-anarchists.

Fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance

The combination of fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance enables banks to create unfunded state liabilities which are a form of money.

To vote is to consent to the authority of the govt

Libertarians support proportional representation

Pr is less representative and more direct than fptp

It doesn't make sense to have only one representative

To have only one winner in an election is not logical... if we are holding an election it can only be because there are disparate views on what should happen. Since there is disagreement it makes no sense that the group should be represented by one person when they can be represented by many. If many representatives are possible it is illogical to have only one.

Fptp means the centre-left have no one to fear

Fptp is a centre-left monopoly

It's difficult to make a convincing argument for the abolition of fptp (and specifically that pr enhances freedom... we are not interested in making an argument from the left) because for neither of the leading parties does it make sense to get rid of it. If we consider the centre-left party... fptp enables them to get into power very easily and so it would make no sense for them to want to get rid of it. The left would not want to make it more difficult for them to get into power. If they are not concerned about fairness then there is no argument to make against the left that fptp is bad. If we assume fptp is a centre-left monopoly then the only arguments to use against the left are those against monopolies and the same arguments as those which must have been used at the inception of democracy itself.

To use arguments against fptp against the centre-right party makes no sense because the argument of a libertarian would rest on the premise that the centre-right party has no chance of being elected so to argue for them to change their policy is a contradiction. You would only be arguing with them if they have a possibility of being elected in which case there would be no reason to change the system.

We can only sensibly make an argument for pr directed at the left and it must be made on the grounds that fptp gives the left an unfair advantage and so we must replace it like we must replace all monopolies. We must argue that fptp is a centre-left monopoly.

Democracy is not government

Democracy isn't government... government is when you don't have a choice about what happens to you. Theft is a form of government. Government is a crime... if you have a choice about what happens to you this is not government. Democracy prevents government.

Fptp is illogical because minorities are important

Fptp does not give us a logical veto against socialism

If democracy is to have a veto against socialism then fptp is not democracy unless you consider it possible to vote for a fptp party. It is impossible to logically vote for a party which will not give you full democracy so it is illogical to vote for a party which supports fptp. Since the centre-right party in a two-party fptp system generally supports fptp then we cannot logically protect ourselves from socialism and so we do not have democracy. Only pr is democracy. Democracy requires that we have a logical veto against socialism. Fptp does not give us a logical protection against socialism.

Democracy is bad for fractional reserve banking

Democracy prevents fractional reserve banking because as people become aware of the nature of banking they will demand an end to deposit insurance.

Fractional reserve banking requires the absence of democracy.

Definition: To be right wing is to be in favour of fptp

Democracy is the power to say no

Democracy is the means by which we can check with others that our actions are tolerated. We give others a veto on what we plan to do... when we elect representatives we delegate this power of veto to another person to act on our behalf. When we elect an official via one past the post this means that all of our veto powers are handed to a solitary person. With pr we can elect someone closer to our beliefs. In a sense with pr we do not delegate any powers. We hold on to the power of veto ourselves. With optp rather than to (have the ability to) protect ourselves as with pr someone else is elected to protect the group or constituency. Quite often with optp the elected official does not veto sufficient laws and so their protection is worthless. If we want to be protected by ourselves then we need pr.

To have a vote is to have the power to say no but with optp we rely on our representative to say 'no' on our behalf which they rarely do. With pr we can say no by ourselves.

Fractional reserve banking is not a contradiction

Fractional reserve banking is benign because it is not authoritarian. The banks receive a subsidy from the government so we cannot have any complaint with the banks. We can only have a complaint when there is an inconsistency in the relationship between the government and the individual. If the government is aggressive this is a problem under common law but it is not aggressive to be favourable to a particular segment of society. It is not a contradiction to give bail-outs to the rich for example (as with frb). The only contradiction is when the individual is asked to pay for it.

If we have multiple winners there is proportionality

First past the post is a single-winner type of election. The problem with single-winner elections is that because only one candidate can win voters must decide which candidates have a chance to win. Only those with a chance to win can win outright and so they must vote for a less preferred candidate... their democratic power is diminished. If there are multiple winners in an election this means that voters can promote their unequivocal choice without fear of their vote being wasted. Multiple winner elections result in fewer wasted votes. If there is only a single winner we have less opportunity to have our views expressed. Proportional representation relies on there being more than one winner otherwise not everyone can win and people will vote in a game-theoretic 'tactical' manner. If there are not multiple winners there will not be proportionality.

Proportional representation is good for anarchists

Proportional representation is good for anarchists because more choice means less government. We can assume voters want at least some freedom so if they are given the broadest possible choice they will choose only the socialism which they require. If people can choose not to pay for things they don't want they will not pay for them. If people can reject unwanted socialism they will do so... if they won't elections are redundant. There will be the least socialism when people are given the most opportunity to reject it. Proportional representation is bad for government and hence good for anarchists.

People who like fptp are either anarchists or criminals

If politicians are good they would want to be elected by the fairest means possible. If you are not a politician then to be indifferent between fptp and pr is not pertinent... but if you are a politician (or aspire to be) then to favour fptp is criminal. Fptp makes it more difficult for voters to hire and fire their representatives. If you are a politician and think this difficulty is a good thing then there is something wrong and we can call you a criminal. Politicians who favour fptp are criminals. If people who do not aspire to political office defend fptp then this is not so egregious but to defend fptp means either you are an anarchist or a criminal.

Democracy is a form of anarchy

First past the post is a means of selecting a leader. But if you do not want a leader it is not a very good system of voting. If we do not want a leader and we want to represent ourselves then pr is the best type of system. It is the closest thing to holding a referendum on all laws. Pr is like democratic anarchy ...just as a system of perpetual referendums would be. Anyone can propose a law and if everyone agrees on it then it is codified. Unless anarchy is lawlessnes then pr is very close to anarchy. Government is undemocratic... that which is democratic is not government it is lawful anarchy. Pr is lawful anarchy... democracy is not government it is here forever and will never go away. It is the means by which we can determine what is true and false as far as morality and behaviour are concerned. Without it there is no legal truth. Democracy is law and the most anarchist form of democracy is pr.

Fptp isn't representative democracy

If we are to elect a government we should be sure to have many representatives and not just one. If we elect only one leader then we must vote tactically for one of the candidates which has a reasonable chance of winning. Tactical voting means voting for someone we do not like very much because the person we really like has little chance of winning. So we work out who is popular and pick our favourite of the popular candidates. The objection to tactical voting is not that we dislike people voting against the other established parties... that is what we expect... our complaint is that (to do so) we must vote for a party which we do not like very much. It is the if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them aspect of tactical voting which is offensive not that we vote negatively... all elections whether they are proportional or not are negative. The problem is not that they are tactical it is that they are not tactical enough. Fptp is insufficiently tactical.

If there is only one leader then we cannot vote for our preferred candidate only one who is likely to do well. Not being able to vote for whom we really want is a problem because people want small government where possible. If we allow many leaders we allow democracy and small government. The alternative to pr is not anarchy it is rule by the dominating main parties which are highly socialist in different ways. Pr gives power to the voter and removes it from the dominant parties. Fptp gives the bigger parties an unfair advantage which they exploit with socialism. Fptp gives us more socialism than the voters want. Pr gives no more than the problems of democracy fptp gives the problems of democracy plus the problems of the main parties. Pr destroys the main parties.

We don't need to have only one ruler the principles of anrchy dictate that many people can rule. In a referendum many people can vote but with fptp this is reduced down to just a single person. If referendums are the ultimate form of direct democracy then pr can be seen as a very close approximation to this. With pr we elect a collection of people to act as a proxy for the country as a whole. If there are lots of people voting on something it is unlikely to happen. Democracy is a veto on laws. It is more difficult for a law to pass if many people have a veto... which is why referendums tend to result in a 'no' vote. Fptp exclues the public from the legislative process.

Being able to choose a leader or even a representative is not the same as being able to vote. Pr is not really representative democracy in the way that fptp is... with pr we are represented truly. With fptp we are represented by the least worst of the available (popular) options so we are not represented.

Pr enables politicians to ditch their parties

The power of the fptp parties rests in only one candidate having a realistic chance to do well in a constituency. If a constituency has multiple seats then a party will need to consider whether to field more than one candidate. It no longer becomes such a priority for the politicians themselves to be craven to the parties... they can go elsewhere and being chosen by the party is not such an advantage. To be selected by the party is important only because we do not have pr. The politicians can ditch the parties once pr arrives.

There is no such thing as democracy

The antithesis of presidentialism is pr

We can define presidentialism to mean government with all the power being controlled by a single person. This is the result we find (and expect) in a mayoral election... clearly all the power here is given to just one person but we also find it in a fptp election where the parties dominate. Whether or not we elect a libertarian president we still must follow their laws. With pr there is no president and so it is easier for the country to reject bad laws. With a presidential system we rely on the leader to reject bad laws but with pr we can do it ourselves. With pr there is no leader and so it is a form of anarchy.

Proportionality is the only safe form of democracy

First past the post is unsafe

Democracy is a form of socialism so it is important that minorities are not ignored. If democracy is not socialism then it is not a problem and we can relax and let it play out... but it is aggressive. Democracy is not good which is why we need to be very careful to protect individuals. If socialists are allowed to control democracy they will not protect the individual which means bad things can happen. To protect ourselves from the damage caused by democracy we should make sure only a safe form of democracy can be used. Proportionality is the safe form of democracy. Fptp is unsafe.

First past the post is why we are not listened to

Democracy is bad for freedom

If democracy is good we would not need to cheat to get proportional outcomes... if democracy is good then altering the system would not be a good idea. Ensuring proportional outcomes is a good idea because democracy is a false concept. Democracy is bad so it makes sense to corrupt it with pr. Anyone that is opposed to pr is a proponent of democracy... which is a false concept. Democracy is terrible which is why we need to damage it with pr. What is bad for democracy is good for freedom.

People are not socialists so fptp is a problem

Democracy is not a problem if we have pr

Even if we object to the fundamental premise of democracy (that morality is derived from opinion) it is redundant to do so if not enough others agree. If the mob thinks the mob has legitimacy there is no point arguing about it. If enough people are libertarians and we have a fair voting system then democracy will not be threatening because people will (vote to) leave each other alone. Democracy is only a problem if the majority of people are socialists (in which case the absence of democracy would be no better) or we do not have a fair voting system. If we have a fair voting system then democracy is not a problem... either if the majority of people are socialists or not. Democracy is only a problem if it is unfair and not proportional.

Democracy is anarchy

Democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule (or government) by the people but if the people rule themselves then there is no government. Democracy is anarchy.

Proportional rep. is a conservative philosophy

The fptp parties hate their country

First past the post is bad for libertarians because it means that only majoritarian political parties can do well. Minorities are excluded. Since the two main parties reject pr we can assume they reject minorities and libertarians. These parties would prefer to protect themselves than let people have democracy. But this is damaging to the country because the health of the country depends on the health of the individual. The fptp parties put themselves ahead of the country when they oppose electoral reform. They care more about their particular (chosen) party than the country as a whole.

There is no point discussing politics without pr

Strong government requires cheating and fptp

The paradox of democracy is that without cheating we end up with a lack of proportionality. However fptp is a form of cheating so without cheating we would end up with proportionality and a weaker government. Strong government requires cheating and fptp.

First past the post elections are dishonourable

Fptp is illogical but it cannot be changed by dialogue

It's not possible to convince someone that fptp is a bad idea. The reason for this is that their belief or support for fptp does not lie on any foundational assumptions... it is merely what has always been. They will often interpret someone wanting to change things as a revolutionary and not a libertarian. Since support for fptp doesn't rest on any principles it is not possible to convince people to change it.