First past the post is the worst possible system

First past the post is worse than anarchy

It is better to have no elections at all than to have elections organised using first past the post. (Nothing is worse than fptp.) To have no elections at all (and therefore no government) would be better than to have fptp.

Anarchy is possible

Proportional r. is good because anarchy is impossible

First past the post elections tend to result in a two-party system because people respond to the actions of other people. People will end up voting only for those parties which they know have a realistic chance of success. The problem with fptp is that we end up with a two-party system. This is obviously bad because our own choice is restricted and so too is that of other people. Given that (due to Duverger's law) a two-party system will emerge from fptp it makes no sense to vote for parties which endorse this system. It is bad to live in a country with fptp so it is logical for voters to support parties which endorse pr. To vote for fptp is illogical.

First past the post is an elitist voting system

First past the post can only be altered by those who are in control of it. If an outsider such as myself objects to it then there is not much they can do about it. We do not control the voting system if we do not control the parliament... and we do not control the parliament because of the fptp voting system itself. Only people who endorse fptp could ever be in a position to change it... which means we have an insoluble problem. Even if the voters want pr it would mean that they are willing to abandon their ability to influence the outcome of a general election. And even then they very likely would not get what they want. They would risk losing their (tactical) vote in favour of pr but with only a very small likelihood of their sacrifice being worthwhile in achieving pr. They would very likely not get pr and have wasted their fptp vote. It is difficult for voters to get pr because if they abandon the mainstream parties it is unlikely they will get pr. In that sense fptp protects itself. We can think of the people that strongly endorse fptp as being similar to a kind of political elite... it is difficult to remove them once they have been established. Fptp is an elitist system. When we vote tactically we are pandering to the elites... in a sense the elites are holding the electorate to ransom in that if they do not want to vote tactically and support the elite system they will have no influence and effectively no vote. Your only (meaningful) vote can be one which supports the elite. Failure to vote for a party which supports pr is to support the elites.

First past the post is associated with nationalism

First past the post relies on the idea that if you like capitalism then you will vote for the centre-right party... otherwise you will vote for the party of the left. Given that there is a choice of only two parties it (kind of) assumes voters have a responsibility to vote for the centre-right party unless they are socialists. But it doesn't make sense to vote for what might be considered a default option. It would be strange to be enthusiastic about capitalism. We might accept it as the best and perhaps only means to ensure a country has wealth but that does not mean an enthusiastic endorsement. It would be stupid to be enthusiastic about capitalism... but the premise of voting requires that we are enthusiastic. To vote is a positive act so unless we are being irrational there is no objective reason to vote for the centre-right party in a fptp system... we are not changing the world in a positive way we are only protecting ourselves against something worse. But given that there might be something to do with the centre-right party about which we object then this is a bad system. We do not vote defensively with enthusiasm... to do so would be to be nationalist and to identify with the country as a whole. If we are not a nationalist and also at least sympathetic to capitalism then there is no reason to vote for the centre-right party in a fptp system. For fptp to 'work' and be able to prevent communism it requires that voters are both against socialism and also nationalistic. If people are not nationalistic fptp will not work in that sense.

Right-wing doesn't mean anything in and of itself

No one is right-wing it is a false ideology contrived in response to (the combination of) left-wing collectivists and the fptp voting system. Being opposed to something (or merely not being a part of it) is not an ideology in itself. Opposition is not an ideology. Without the fptp voting system there would be no concept of right-wing... there would be liberals and libertarians and other such ideologies but not right-wing in and of itself. Right-wing doesn't exist as an ideology outside the fptp paradigm.

First past the post is a left-wing voting system

It is not only the intentions of voters which determines the outcome of an election. Assuming the votes are counted fairly and are not manipulated outright, there are other means by which the result can be skewed. If there is not proportional representation this tends to skew the results towards the political left. If we assume the 'left' favours the collective whereas the right favours the individual we can quickly see how fptp hinders the right. Minorities are well catered for in the proportional representation style of election. A person belonging to a minority which they want to support is able to vote for and receive representation. Pr is good for minorities. Something which is good for minorities is also good for the individual (since the individual is a minority) and so pr is good for the right. Something which is good for the right is not good for the left and so pr is not good for the left. First past the post is good for the left.

First past the post is a monopoly for the left

Neither of the fptp parties favour a small state

The false assumption being made by advocates of fptp is that at least one of the emergent fptp parties will favour a small state. If opponents of fptp accept this claim then they will not win the argument. To establish the case for pr we must reject the claim that (at least) one of the fptp parties will be for a small state. In truth neither of the emergent parties under fptp will be for a small state because they have a monopoly position.

Capitalism is the worst form of government...

Capitalism is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

The Tories are not interested in freedom

There is no reason for a party (ostensibly) of small government to be against pr other than for selfish and narrow party political reasons. First past the post doesn't make it any less likely that a party of collectivism and economic interventionism will get elected... in fact there are valid arguments to show that this is actually more likely to happen. The Tories rarely get elected under fptp. The only reason to support fptp is to protect the two establishment parties from the electorate. It is equally possible to get a small government (in fact it is more likely) under proportional representation than fptp.

First past the post is not patriotic

Democracy (proportional representation) is good

Democracy is good because people want to be free... the problem with fptp (a lack of democracy) is that it gets in the way of what people want... which is to be free. There is nothing wrong with democracy in and of itself and in the context of a government. The only important alternative to democracy is anarchy but the problem with having no government at all is that we have no means to apprehend criminals. Anarchy is lawlessness so this is not a valid consideration. We cannot have anarchy and so then we can only have democracy... (as no other form of government is viable) so democracy is good and we must do everything we can to enhance its reach. Only democracy is an option and (within the context of government) it is good. Wherever there is a government we must strive to maximise democracy. Proportional representation is preferable to fptp because it is more democratic and (if there is a government) that is a good thing.

Proportional representation is only a matter of time

First past the post is a fascist system

First past the post is not the best system

If it is not offensive to someone to be reduced to a choice between just two parties then that person will never be in favour of pr. If people are fine with the two party system and see nothing wrong with it then you will never convince them of the benefits of pr because they are blind to the problems of fptp. You cannot make someone be annoyed by something... you cannot make someone see something. All that you can do is remove any other prejudices they may have and eventually they will see what you see.

It is obvious that fptp is beneficial to the left

First past the post means that anti-socialists are under represented... fptp splits the liberal (anti-socialist) vote. (Collectivists are happy to vote for the big parties.) Proportional representation enables all anti-socialists to be represented fully without their vote being diluted.

Pr is the only way to make the government smaller

Pr is better than fptp at controlling the government

If there is a government we would want to have the greatest possible control over it... which is why pr is preferable... fptp fails to give voters control over the government.

It is insane to deny that pr is preferable

The definition of insanity is to be in denial of an obvious truth. It is insane to deny that the sun is hot (by any rational measure). We are insane if we deny true facts. It is a true fact that the more choice people have the fewer problems there are which is why proportional representation is preferable. To deny that pr is preferable is to deny the rational and obvious truth which is insane. Even though the advantages of pr are denied by our politicians (who are typically the barometers of truth) pr is still better. Even if politicians deny it pr is better than fptp. Politicians are wrong and insane when they claim that fptp is preferable.

First past the post is not anarchy (the left can get in)

It could be argued that a one-party dictatorship is not hugely dissimilar to anarchy. Even in an anarchist society we can expect there would be courts and some form of justice system and police. So then if there is a one-party dictatorship this is a bit like anarchy apart from the fact that the courts are not arranged by consensus instead by dictat. The 'conservative' view might be that those who are in power have always been in power and it should remain so. Even without a state the conservative view remains the same.

If first past the post is similar to an anarchist one-party dictatorship with the party of the centre-right being the natural party of government then (if this point of view is valid) what we have is not too far from anarchy. Anarchists cannot complain if the 'conservative' party is in power because things would not be too much different if there is no state at all... so the argument goes. The flaw in this position (this defence of fptp) is that under fptp it is perfectly possible for the party of the centre-left to win. Because the party of the centre-left can win this makes fptp not like (a conservative form of) anarchy instead it becomes something very different.

If first past the post is not anarchy then proportional representation is preferable.

First past the post is good for parties not voters

Proportional representation is not evil

If the right-wing (to mean liberals not 'conservatives') are good people then it would be better to have pr. If the right are bad then fptp is good because it favours the left. For the right to be in favour of fptp is for them to think themselves bad which makes no sense. Unless the right think they are evil then logically they should support pr. Rejection of pr by the right suggests they consider themselves to be evil.

Proportional representation is patriotic

Proportional representation is good for the country... people who care about their country want to have the best voting system possible. The parties are not the country.

First past the post subsidises the rich

First past the post traps poor people into subsidising the rich... or voting for something worse on the left. Assuming the party of the centre-left in a fptp dictatorship has become Stalinist and unelectable then even if poor people want to reject the left fptp gives them no option to do so. Fptp forces the poor to vote for the rich or face Stalinism. This is not good because it is not good for the rich to be subsidised.

First past the post is the worst form of democracy

First past the post is bad for rich people

It's stupid for the right not to want pr... we can assume the right are richer than those who vote for the parties of the left. If libertarianism is about preventing sharing rich libertarians 'should' want pr because fptp requires that people need to vote against their economic best interests.

We could call proportional rep. shared representation

First past the post cannot be contradicted (sadly)

First past the post even though it is appalling is stable because it has no logical inconsistencies... it is not logically inconsistent in the same way that a dictatorship is not logically inconsistent. (If there should be a government then fptp cannot be falsified as a concept.) We can assume that everyone thinks themselves to be right and we all think what we think is correct... otherwise we would think differently. For that reason no one would refuse to be in control of things even if they are an anarchist... they would choose to do nothing. It makes no sense not to want to be in control even if we want to do nothing and for that reason those who benefit from fptp will never rescind from their view. They cannot be beaten in argument we can only appeal to fairness and to a lack of greed. Greedy people like to be in control of things and only by realising that life is better when we are less greedy will their view change. We cannot argue a person out of their position of greed.

First past the post cannot suppress the truth

First past the post enables the government (the ruling parties) to suppress public opinion in an oppressive way. This is an authoritarian dogma which assumes the establishment have a higher insight into what is good. The only viable way to form a government is democracy... to have a (non-democratic) government elite is illegitimate so fptp is illegitimate for the same reasons that tyranny and dictatorship is illegitimate. The problem with fptp is the same as the problem with dictatorship. Fptp is a form of dictatorship. Public opinion is virtue and truth whether we have a democracy or not... it is not because we have a democracy that popular opinion is truth but just because there is no other way to get to the truth. What is popular is true and democracy is the means by which the government is controlled by truth. Fptp suppreses (truth and) democracy. There is no reason to suppress popular truth... which is what fptp does.

A better name for pr might be popular representation

Democracy is a good thing

First past the post is in opposition to the demos

First past the post is the biggest problem in politics

First past the post means that two dominant parties will emerge which are immune from democracy in a sense that the other parties are not. The main two need only to beat each other but the smaller parties must compete against everyone else. This means the big parties have a significant advantage... to the extent that an oligarchy (consisting of the two main parties) is generally established. The two-party system cannot be broken by voters with fptp. All we can do is hope that whichever of the main parties wins is not too offensive... there is nothing we can do to prevent tyranny under this system. (Unless voters abandon both parties... and choose instead parties which insist on proportional representation.) You are part of the problem (as a voter) if you vote for a fptp-endorsing party. The main problem in politics has become the system itself which is first past the post.

First past the post is bad if tactical voting is real

If there is no difference between the electorate and the government then fptp and pr are similar. But if there is a significant difference between the two then pr is preferable because excess government is tyranny if it does not have a democratic mandate. Only democratic force is justified and if pr would reduce the size of government then pr is good. Pr might not reduce the size of government but it would never increase it. If people do not vote tactically under fptp and would vote the same way with pr then (of course) fptp makes no difference but if people do vote tactically then pr is preferable. There is nothing to fear in pr if there is no tactical voting under fptp and if there is then pr is preferable because excess government is tyranny. Fptp is a problem unless tactical voting doesn't exist.

Proportional representation can only be a good thing

First past the post is an obvious contradiction. We do not have democracy if the government is elected via fptp. With fptp (and as a consequence of Duverger's law) almost always a two-party duopoly will emerge. This is not a good thing in the same way that a monopoly is not a good thing. A duopoly is able to behave as a cartel even if it is not an absolute monopoly... by definition against the wishes of the people. Even if people vote for some government intervention the means by which the government is able to intervene is (more) restricted with pr... with fptp the government is able to intervene with much more freedom. With pr people get the size (and type) of government they want. With fptp people can only choose whether it should get bigger or smaller (there is only one axis of control)... pr provides unlimited means by which to influence the government.

Not only the left-right axis is important

The false assumption of fptp is that only the left-right axis is important.

And this applies whether or not you are in favour of government. If you like government then you would want people to get even better representation. If you are against government you would want people to be able to replace their representatives more easily. Being of the view that there is a distinction between the government and the electorate is redundant. If we think that the voters are communists and the state protects our liberties... or alternatively that the voters need to be protected from the market... this does not mean that we should reject pr in either case. The arguments in favour of pr do not concern a preference between the voters and the government (whether from the 'right' or the 'left') it is only a question of how best to arrange representation. If you are pro-government or anti-government pr is still the best system.

Proportional rep. is the natural form of government

First past the post places too great an emphasis on the left-right axis. If our only concern, as voters, is whether our representatives can be considered to be on the 'left' or the 'right' then it serves us well. But there is much more to politics than only this division. Since we have more that defines us politically than left and right we should have a voting system which reflects this. It is absurd that we are given a choice of only two candidates which can realistically win. If there is no good reason to oppose proportional representation then it should be the system in use. Pr is logical and for that reason it should be accepted.

Voting is for people who are not free

The problem with voting is that when we do so we enter into a contract with the government. If the government does not exist (and we own ourselves) there would be no reason to vote so by voting we confirm that the government exists. It is a lie to vote and by doing so we give no reason to the 'government' to think they are not valid. It is like being given a choice of thief... we do not want either so it doesn't make much sense to pick one. If the government did not exist (if we are free) there would be no reason to vote. For that reason then to vote is a lie and to deny freedom. We are free so there is no reason to vote... since there is no government.

First past the post is not a form of democracy

First past the post doesn't give people a voice

First past the post is not a real democracy in the sense that it doesn't give to the people a full expression of their desires... the power is retained and controlled by the governing parties. This leads to a disenfranchisement between the electorate and their government. We might not think this is a serious issue but it is. Not because it means the public will get poor public services (most, if not all, essential services such as food and water are provided by the private sector) but instead because it removes the public from the law. The public need to be closely aligned with their government for the expression of law-and-order in their communities. If there is not full democracy this means that security is provided by a distant and unaccountable government... which means it is not adequately provided. For these reasons proportional representation is preferable to fptp. Pr closes the gap between the government and the people which improves security for the people.

Labour cannot be beaten if there is fptp

There is no reason to reject pr if you accept fptp

Only anarchists and tyrants oppose proportional rep.

The most democratic form of government is proportional representation... it is clearly more democratic than fptp. To be opposed to pr is to be opposed to the representative principles of democracy itself. If you like and accept government by democracy (if you accept fptp) then there is no reason to be opposed to pr. People who reject democracy do so for one of only two reasons... either they are outright anarchists or they are (aspirant) tyrants. The only reason to oppose pr is if you are are an anarchist or a tyrant.

Fptp represents the parties not the people

First past the post is bad for democracy

The parties that do well out of first past the post have little incentive to introduce proportional representation. This means that fptp is stable if those 'in charge' want to keep it. Fptp can only be removed if those in charge want to get rid of it.

Tories do not support first past the post

Tory association with fptp is bad for the country

Tories have lost the fptp battle. They will never defeat the Labour party with this system so it is best if they resign from supporting fptp. If they do not they will continue to consign the country to successive and increasingly totalitarian Labour governments. The Tories have lost over fptp and they are hurting the country by their dogged insistence on sticking to the system. Tory reluctance to give up fptp is hurting the country.

Stupid people are hurting the country

Tories believe that it is possible for a party of the centre-right to get elected under fptp... but this plainly is not the case. This would be fine but for the fact that, because of their dominant position, the Tories are in effect holding the country to ransom because of their views. The country would be free if the Tories did not hold their stupid views about fptp. We are trapped because of their stupidity.

Labour can only be defeated by proportional rep.

First past the post tends towards a one-party totalitarian system... not a two-party system as is commonly believed. The reason for this is that, whilst communism and totalitarianism are illogical, in all other respects it is logical and consistent to vote for the centre-left party in a fptp system. It is not logical to vote for the centre-right party in a fptp system because if we favour a small state we would also favour choice. It is inconsistent to be in favour of liberalism (and even Capitalism) and to be against proportional representation. People will not vote for a party which is illogical where logic is expected of them... they will not vote for a party which encourages choice for the rest of society but none for itself. At least communists protect everyone from the market not just themselves. Voters cannot vote for the centre-right party in a fptp system for these reasons which means it reduces to a single-party system... fptp reduces to totalitarianism. Because the dominant party on the right supports fptp this means it will reduce to totalitarianism (on the left). It would be good for the cause of freedom if those in control of the Tory party came to this realisation... or people would vote for someone else.

Tories do not want proportional representation

It's not possible to be a Tory and also to be in favour of pr... the manner in which votes are counted and representation is awarded is by far the major issue in politics so to support a party which does not share you view on this is impossible.

It would be better to have no democracy than fptp

Pr is good unless the people want more government

Since pr empowers the people we must ask... is this a good thing? If the people are collectivist or fascist then clearly the answer is 'no'. If, on the other hand, the people want less government than those who govern then pr is preferable. To be an advocate of fptp (and not be a socialist) is to make the claim that government under fptp restricts the desires of the people to have more government. People do not want more government and so this position (to be in favour of fptp) is inconsistent unless you are a socialist.

Proportional representation empowers the people

Proportional representation (pr) gives more power to the people whether that means to vote 'tactically' or to vote positively... in either case pr empowers the people.

Without fptp the main parties might not be so popular

Socialism is not valid if it cannot be rejected

The only way to get freedom is through pr since anarchy and safety are incompatible. Anarchy is impossible in a civilised society and so pr is the best and only route to freedom.

Even socialists should support pr... we do not want to impose socialism on people who do not want it and the best way to ensure that it is wanted is to enable people to refuse it. If people are able to reject socialism then it is valid but fptp makes any kind of socialism invalid.

Tories do not want to be free as they are against pr

People who are interested in freedom are either anarchists or they favour pr. But the problem is that anarchism is impossible... it doesn't work in a world where there are laws and police. Anarchy and safety are incompatible... there will always be a government. Since there will always be a government the best and only way to get freedom is to have pr where we can have the widest possible choice of representative. Provided you are not an anarchist (or even if you are since it is impossible...) then to be against pr is to be against freedom.

Proportional representation enables people to be free

With first past the post the protest vote is impossible because we have no meaningful choice. We can waste our vote or vote for one of the established parties. This means voters cannot meaningfully protest. To stop the party of the centre-right we have no choice but to vote for the Labour party (in the UK). To make it less likely that the Labour party will win it would make sense for the Tories to adopt pr which means that votes for any of the minority parties will also stop Labour... not only votes for the Tories. Labour cannot be defeated with fptp. With fptp we have to choose which politician we want to 'represent' us in parliament. But there is no real reason to have a solitary politician to do this... if there are a plethora of politicians to choose from (and be represented by) then our views will be fully represented and not diminished into a single position of only two available. There is no need to reduce the number of representatives down to just one for each seat. If there are many leaders this is a little like anarchy because we are not lead instead we are free to lead ourselves... pr is a kind of democratic anarchy. With pr we are not coerced into choosing one from only two viable choices instead we can choose almost anyone to represent (and own) us. This enables us to own ourselves if we can choose people who will leave us alone. Government is ownership and if we can only choose from between two possible representatives we have a problem. It means that we can never be free because the two parties will always tend to some form of coercive government... even if they intend to do good they will be hijacked by vested interests and stupid people. Nothing good can come from having only two parties to choose from... more choice is better always. To choose a politician is to choose an owner and a master so if we are not able to make a good choice we become slaves. The more leaders we are able to choose between the more free we will be.

The 'right' cannot win under first past the post

It is impossible for the party of the centre-right to win under fptp... only the left can win under fptp.

Government is inevitable

Government is inevitable and even if it isn't fptp does nothing to make the elected government less oppressive. Fptp doesn't prevent government... nothing does.

Proportional rep. is more libertarian than fptp

Equal representation is a better name than pr

Unlike pr first past the post favours the left

It is not possible to vote for the Tories (the generic party of the centre-right) under first past the post. If we had pr then it might be possible to vote for that party but because we have no choice to reject Labour then we cannot vote Tory. We cannot vote Tory if we have no choice... we can vote Labour if we have no choice but that is different politics and fptp is not symmetrical. The default vote under fptp is for the centre-left party... that's just the way it is. It would be strange for the default vote to be for the centre-right party... it would mean that this party represented a kind of popular monarchy which everyone supports. But of course monarchies do not work like that. If they are the monarchy there is no need to vote for them. We do not vote for our leaders we do not vote for our employers and owners... it makes no sense. We might vote to be left alone but that is different. It would then be a contradiction (if we want to be left alone) to vote for a monolithic collectivist party. If we want to be left alone then it makes more sense to vote for a smaller party. Even if the Tory party is a Libertarian party it doesn't make much sense for half of the population to be voting for a Libertarian party... if everyone is a Libertarian (or at least half of the population) then there is no point in having elections because there is nothing we want the government to do for us. The Tories are not an anarchist party and so the choice between two statist parties is frustrating to those who would like more freedom. The Tories are the same thing as Labour but less so in which case it makes sense to vote for the real thing. If we do not like Labour we would want to vote for what is the opposite of Labour not what is the same as Labour but to a lesser degree. Fptp offers no opportunity for Libertarians and anarchists to effectively make their voice heard and for that reason if favours the left. The left are able to vote authentically for the political theory they espouse but that is not also true for those on the right. Only pr offers those on the right the opportunity to have their voice heard... unless the Tories become true anarchists.

The left are the lesser of two evils in a fptp system

The Labour party and any generic party of the centre-left (such as the Democrats in America) do well under fptp because of tactical voting... the Labour party are less hated than their opponents which means they do better in fptp elections. Because of tactical voting fptp elections will mean that the Labour party generally does better than the Tories. This does not apply however in pr elections where tactical voting is not required as we can generally find a party which reflects our views.

Only parties which support pr will give us freedom

Anyone who votes for the (fptp-supporting) left-wing party in a two-party fptp system is not helping and are part of the problem. In doing so you are reinforcing and perpetuating the two-party fptp system which privileges the political class. To improve the system we can only vote for parties which are in favour of extending democracy and making it proportional. Even if this means losing the ability to vote tactically it is still the best approach. It is not good to engage with a system which is unfair... you will only strengthen it and give it legitimacy. Fptp is illegitimate and to vote for either of the two fptp parties (both of which support fptp) is to exacerbate the problem.

Proportional representation is equivalent to freedom

It is illogical to vote for either of the fptp-parties because neither of them support pr. In a democracy fair votes is equivalent to freedom so it makes no sense to vote for a party which does not support freedom. To vote for a party which does not support pr is to vote for a party which does not support freedom. Pr is freedom.

It doesn't make sense to be a member of the Tories

It is very fortunate for Labour that the Tory party insist on keeping first past the post. Without fptp the Labour party would almost never get into power and only then in a coalition. The Tories ensure that the Labour party have a chance of success. Without Tory support for fptp Labour would never get into power.

The Tories do not look progressive under fptp

It is not very sensible for the Conservative party (the generic party of the centre-right) to think that they have a good chance under fptp. Fptp favours Labour because it enables them to seem progressive... being the 'default' party under fptp is not a good thing because the voters do not feel they are actively making a change to their country. People do not feel voting Tory under fptp is progressive and for that reason they will not do so which gives the advantage to Labour. Labour prefer fptp because it makes them look progressive... the voting system is not symmetrical in this regard. Fptp is better for Labour because it enables them to look progressive unlike the Tories. The Tories cannot look progressive under fptp.

Government and proportional rep. are right-wing

Government and proportional representation are both right-wing concepts... the government is how we lock up criminals so it is right-wing. If the government is right-wing then so too is pr since it gives people the best means to control the government.

To argue for fptp doesn't make sense

To oppose pr in the context of democracy doesn't seem to make sense. If the alternative to pr is anarchy, monarchy or some other such system then those arguments would stand up to greater scrutiny. But the alternative to pr is fptp which itself is a form of democracy. Under democracy we each have a vote and are treated equally... so even under the rules of democracy itself fptp is illogical.

In a democracy government is the same as society

The government is real

The government is a real thing otherwise it would be impossible to prosecute criminals. To prosecute criminals relies on truth being derived from democracy. If the opinion of one person has equal weight to that of everyone else then no crime will ever be punished because the defendant will always claim their innocence... and there will be lawless anarchy. Truth as far as law-and-order is concerned is not derived in the same manner as it is in the scientific process... it is derived by consensus and weight of opinion.

First past the post is a violation of property rights

First past the post is a violation of our democratic property rights. We have a right to fair elections and it is a right that votes which are cast for minority candidates should count equally to those which are cast for the mainstream parties.

We can consider the democratic process to resemble a courtroom. The electorate is represented by the jury, the 'establishment' is represented by the judge and the accused is the subject of the law. The purpose of the trial in this analogy is to decide what to do with the accused. Democratically speaking this is analogous to deciding what laws to pass. For example the accused could be someone who has earned an income and the jury must decide if they should be forced to pay income tax. In normal circumstances it is the jury who (unmolested) make the decision. However with fptp the jury do not make the decision... the decision is instead made by the judge. This is a kind of theft of decision-making power which transfers the decision from the jury to the judge. The jury should rightly be able to make the decision (for themselves) but they are not able to because of the unfair voting system.