First past the post is only good for party loyalists

It makes no sense for Tory voters to tolerate first past the post. It makes perfect sense for the left to tolerate fptp because the Labour party do very well from it. It makes no sense for the 'right' to accept the fptp duopoly. The ability to vote for the Tories is no compensation for a lack of democracy. It is strange for the right to tolerate fptp in this way... it is unusual not to want (full) democracy... to be content with the obligation to vote for the party of the centre-right is strange and pathetic. No one on the right who tolerates fptp can be respected.... they are like sheep. It is amusing to see how pathetic and afraid they are... they do not even think to question their ownership. It does not even occur to them that they might have a right to democracy. They are blind to the problems of fptp because they are so completely loyal. It is not a question of fear (and of them being afraid) because voting for someone else has never even occurred to them... they have never been irritated by the Conservative party because they are so completely within the boundaries set by it.

It is impossible to vote for a party that rejects pr

The Conservative party are opposed to pr

No one should vote for the fptp parties

First past the post is good for the state

First past the post is for people who fear anarchy... proportional representation is a form of anarchy so it is good for anarchists. People who oppose pr are in favour of the government.

Fptp is stable because the govt are not anarchists

Only anarchists will choose pr... the government will never choose pr which is why it is so difficult to overturn fptp. The government is generally occupied by people who want to be there (statists) which means fptp is stable. Fptp is stable because the government is not occupied by anarchists. The government are not anarchists so fptp is stable.

Not even fptp will prevent anarchy

To defend fptp is to defend the state

Government is a lack of choice

It is illogical to oppress people so it is illogical to support fptp. First past the post is an illogical premise because it does not offer voters the full amount of freedom and choice.

Pr is good for the government and the people

What's good for the government is good for everyone because the government has legal power to be aggressive. The best thing for the government is for it to not exist. Anarchy is good for the government so proportional representation is also good for the government because it will destroy it. What is good for the government (pr) is not bad for anarchists because anarchy is good for the government. Pr is good for anarchists because it is good for the government. Not everything good for the government is bad... for anarchists. Sometimes what is good for the government is good.

Democracy reduces the size of the government

First past the post is the only valid (stable) form of government... proportional representation means voters can choose to reduce the size of the state. (Voters can't choose less state under fptp.) If government is good then proportional representation is bad... since democracy is bad for the government. For the government to allow anything other than fptp makes no sense because to give people choice is not government.

Those who oppose fptp should vote for the Tories

It is Labour not the Tories who are the party which most supports fptp. The Tories have less to gain from fptp than Labour because collectivists (and socialists) are rewarded by a voting system which favours the big parties. In spite of Tory opposition to the introduction of pr they are still the anti-fptp party in a fptp duopoly.

Pr is good unless the two main parties are the same

In logic the middle is excluded which means that the truth of something is not ambiguous... there are no grey areas when the truth is revealed. So if the Labour party are bad and something is good for the Labour party (such as fptp) then it cannot be good or even in a state of ambiguity... we know that it is bad. Fptp is either good or bad... and it is bad. The common assumption is that fptp is good for both the Labour party and the Conservative party together but if the Conservative party are the opposition to Labour then fptp cannot be good for them. The Conservatives must either be in opposition to Labour or they are the Labour party themselves. If the Tories are not Labour then fptp is bad for the Conservatives and bad for everyone. If fptp is good for both the Conservatives and Labour (as defenders of fptp assume) then those two parties are the same. If there is a difference between the two parties then pr is preferable.

First past the post is good for Labour and no one else

We do not have an obligation to vote for the Tories even if (under fptp) to fail to so results in a win for Labour. Since no such obligation exists it is very likely that fptp elections will result in victories for the Labour party. The Tory party can never be a problem with a fptp system because to be a problem means they must be in power. They are never in power in a fptp system so fptp is a perpetual monopoly for the Labour party. First past the post is always a win for Labour. Labour will always be in government until we get proportional representation. We can only get a non-Labour government with pr. With fptp it is impossible to be governed by anyone other than the Labour party.

The Tories are communist if they support fptp

First past the post results in the emergence of two (dominant) communist parties. Both parties in a fptp duopoly will be communist because only by appealing to a large number of people (communism) is it possible to get elected. Fptp rewards popularity which means it rewards communism.

Tory support for fptp makes them unpopular

If Tories can't win under pr they can't win under fptp... the reason the Tories cannot win under fptp is that voters instinctively respond to the perceived monopoly status of the Tory party by voting for Labour. It is a defensive (even conservative) act to vote for the Labour party in a fptp election. Tory support for fptp (as a party which promotes individual freedom) is a contradiction and the only response is to vote for the Labour party. People will vote Labour until the Tories reject fptp. If the Tories won't give us a choice then we will vote Labour.

Tories don't mind that fptp is bad for the country

First past the post is favourable to no one but the party of the centre-left (the Labour party). This is because individualists and liberals are disinclined to vote for a collectivist mainstream party... which is what is required of them under fptp. If under fptp we do not vote tactically (for a collectivist party) then our vote is wasted. So collectivists are rewarded with this system. Clearly this is not a problem for the socialist Labour party but we might imagine that a liberal centre-right party would find this objectionable. Since the Tory party do not object to first past the post we can deduce that they are more concerned with the narrow aspirations of their party than they are for their country. Tory support for fptp shows they place less importance on their country than they do their party. They put party before country. The fact that fptp is favourable for Labour and that the Tories want to keep it means that the system is bad for the country.

Democracy is a bad thing

Democracy is a bad idea because it gives a mandate to the government. If there is no democracy then it will be much harder for 'the government' to rule and they will more obviously be the mafia. This is not an argument against voting... to vote is not to endorse democracy. The less democracy there is the more obvious it becomes that the government is illegitimate and has no mandate.

First past the post is worse for minorities than pr

First past the post is a threat to freedom because it punishes minorities... not only do minorities fail to receive equal representation (to their number) in parliament but also they must live with a government made up of the winning majority. For minorities (everyone) first past the post is worse than to have no government at all.

Fptp is like a referendum on the main parties

It's not such a bad thing to have first past the post... the reason for this is that direct democracy is legitimate and we can consider a fptp election to be a referendum on which of the main parties should lead. If there is nothing wrong with a referendum then there is nothing wrong with having a referendum on which of the main parties should lead and so there is nothing wrong with fptp. Fptp is only a problem if we actually want voters to be represented in parliament and we want true democracy. If we do not want true democracy but instead a periodic choice between two main parties then fptp suffices.

If fptp doesn't matter then government is irrelevant

Communism is a form of magic but magic isn't possible so the only realistic approach to politics is pragmatism. Which is why parties of the 'right' who are economically liberal tend to be seen as nasty since they deny that communism is possible. Being an anti-communist is a bit like being an atheist since we are contradicting a cherished (albeit false) belief. It's not that communism isn't a nice idea... it's just that it's impossible. Communism is impossible so the right are nasty.

Despite being nasty many people in the country are prepared to vote for right-wing parties so we know that many (perhaps even) most of the electorate are against communism. They are not bigoted against economic freedom and recognise the pragmatic reality that communism doesn't work. Given that many voters are against communism there is no need to shield them from full democracy. If to be right-wing is to be nasty it might be the case that some of the voters are even more nasty than what they are being offered. Perhaps people are to the right of the established centre-right party in a fptp dictatorship... in which case full pr would offer even more (economic) freedom. Fptp might be restraining the people from being even more free of the government. If democracy is how we get free from the government then more of it is always a good thing. Democracy is good unless the people are deluded but they are less deluded than the politicians. The people are less deluded and more right-wing (nasty) in economic terms than the politicians so pr is preferable to fptp.

The voters can be trusted with true representation

First past the post leads to big government. We can assume that voters will not vote for more government than they need so to reduce their choice is to impose more government on them. People only choose the government they want and no more... the rest is imposed on them. People aren't nice to the government.

The Tories will eventually accept pr

First past the post is not symmetrical it is good for the party of the centre-left because (if there is to be a government) it makes sense to vote for the party who is in general in favour of the institution of government itself. This means that those who in general oppose government are inclined to prefer proportional representation. It is strange for anyone who dislikes the concept of government to be in favour of fptp which means eventually (even with fptp in place) it will change. There will be too much pressure on the party of the centre-right to accept pr for it to be resisted. Eventually the Tories will concede that fptp is an obstacle to a small government and adopt (a preference for) pr.

Tories don't hate Labour or they would hate fptp

We have no obligation to vote for any political party even if failure to do so means something bad will happen. The duopoly which emerges under fptp means that if we fail to vote Tory Labour will get in so fptp is only tolerable (to Tories who hate Labour) if we have an obligation to vote for them... but we do not. So fptp is not tolerable to Tories who hate (anyone who hates) Labour. Only if we have a tolerance for Labour do we have a tolerance for fptp... those who do not like Labour do not like fptp.

First past the post gives power to the elite

There is no reason for libertarians to be opposed to proportional representation. Neither of the established parties is libertarian so libertarians have no meaningful option at the ballot box. First past the post makes it impossible for libertarians to vote for a party which represents their views... because each of the mainstream parties pander to fringe (authoritarian) views. Libertarians are fine with pr if the alternative is fptp.

Government might not be so bad if we have pr

We know that government is hated by most people but the problem might be as simple as (changing) the voting system. If we change the voting system the government might not be hated to the extent that it is today... if it remains as hated as it is today with a fair voting system then it is time to get rid of it altogether. The problem with government might not be government itself but the form of voting system being used. If fptp is not he problem then we should have anarchy but let's try pr first. We should try pr before we abolish the government entirely. Anarchy might be the answer but it makes sense to try pr first. The problem might only be fptp and not he government (and voters) as a whole. The problem with the government might not be the voters but the way in which the votes are counted. To oppose the introduction of pr is to be antagonistic towards the voters themselves. First past the post is against the voters.

More past the post is an improvement on fptp

Just because proportional representation is (a form of government and) democratic doesn't make it intrinsically bad... given that it is always being compared with fptp. Proponents of pr are not advocating it in a vacuum they are advocating it only in the context of the existing fptp system. Compared against nothing pr is bad (since it is government and government is unwanted) but compared to fptp it is preferable. Fptp is not the absence of democracy... pr is a less bad alternative to (government by) fptp. Pr is bad but fptp is yet worse.

If there is no fptp establishment there is less harm

There is nothing sacred about the voter... voters can do great damage and we know from history that many tyrannies have been supported by democracy. With fptp the voter is able to do great harm to its own people and to other countries. With pr the voter is only able to harm others to the extent that the electorate wish... but with fptp the harm is the sum of that which the voters desire and that which the 'government' desires. If we assume that in a pr system the government and the people are aligned then it is only with fptp that the 'establishment' are a relevant factor. With pr there is no establishment there is only the electorate. With fptp both the establishment and the electorate can exist and do harm but with pr only the electorate can do harm. Pr removes the establishment leaving only the electorate. With pr there is less harm because there is no establishment only an electorate... with fptp there is both which leads to more harm. Pr causes less harm because there is no establishment.

Pr is better since we have no obligation to vote Tory

The first past the post system is problematic because there is no reason to vote for the centre-right party (the Tories) unless we identify with them and see the opposition as a threat to freedom. If we see ourselves as the Tories or as someone who is supported by the Tories then fptp is adequate because it is then natural to defend that party in an election. If the Tories are the default party of government with which you identify then fptp is fine. If on the other hand there is no default party of government then fptp is a problem because it is not conservative to be voting for the Conservative party. Individualism is a conservative philosophy. It doesn't make any sense for a conservative to be voting for a large monolithic fptp party. It doesn't make sense for the entire country to be conservative... we must be conservative in relation to something else. If to be conservative is to be virtuous then it makes no sense for everyone to consider themselves to be a conservative because we can only be so in relation to others... and this is where there is a problem with fptp. There is no information in the system if we are all expected to vote for the large centre-right party... we cannot differentiate what is good policy and what is bad because everyone agrees and there is no room for argument. The Conservative party is not an anarchist party by definition... we must vote for it for it to be relevant. If it is the anarchist party then the presence of government contradicts that position because it has been in (exclusive) power in the past and not abolished government. The Conservative party is a party of government not an anarchist party which means that it cannot expect to be the default party of government and that fptp is bad. If the Tories are not the default party of government (which they can only be if they are anarchists... and which by definition they are not) then it is not progressive to defend them in an election... the opposition are not necessarily a threat we are merely choosing which party we prefer. Fptp is a problem because the Tories are not anarchists which means the opposition are not by definition bad. If it might be true that the opposition (Labour) are not bad (and might then be electable) then fptp makes no sense because because we have no obligation to vote for the Tories... and we might as well vote for anyone. Fptp makes sense if the Labour party are by definition bad and we have an obligation to protect the country and to vote for the Tory party. If there is no logic to fptp then the default system to have would be proportional representation.

The Tories could be nice but they are not

Democracy is the primary reason that (arrogant) statists are not a direct threat to our liberties. Without democracy many people would die as we have seen in history... but with democracy even though statists are arrogant and wrong we can still be relatively safe. In a democracy statists are relatively unthreatening so we can say that democracy is bad news for criminals.

The problem with fptp is that even if we have convinced someone that socialism is wrong it does not necessarily follow that they will vote for the party of the centre-right... unless they feel (as a voter) that they have an obligation to do so. If we feel 'lucky' and grateful to have been given democracy then such an obligation might exist. With proportional representation it is possible as a non-socialist to vote without feeling that we are compromising our principles. The problem with fptp is that it is hard to imagine a monolithic fptp party to be a true representation of our views... it is likely that for some reason the party of the centre-right (the Tories) will have offended or oppressed people in some way which we cannot defend. By voting for them we are in some way responsible and so we do not want to vote for the Tories. Even though we would be willing to vote for a (smaller) liberal party under a system of proportional representation. With fptp the anti-socialists lose votes because it is difficult to accommodate all of the centre-right in one large party. The principle of the party being a 'broad church' for the right means that we must align ourselves with some unpleasant views if we seek to protect ourselves at the ballot box. To be tolerable to liberals the Tory party must risk offending some of its more bigoted base by failing to be socially authoritarian. It's not impossible for the party of the centre-right to be acceptable to social liberals... it's just that it hasn't happened yet. There is no intrinsic reason for the party of the centre-right in a fptp system to be (socially) offensive... it is merely a matter of precedent that this is the case. The Tories could be nice and there is no good reason why they are not so.

First past the post is a kind of internal anarchy

If our only concern is international (external) politics then we can say that first past the post is adequate... in providing an effective government. The reason being that fptp provides a leader with which to negotiate. Proportional representation is able to do this also but fptp certainly achieves this. The problem might arise with fptp when we seek to resolve internal disputes. Because there are only two parties then if neither party is interested in representing your complaint it will be ignored. Equally if both parties hold your view (to the detriment of an ignored minority) then also fptp fails. If we want government to resolve internal disputes then fptp is very bad. Only a proportional system gives voice to the complaints of minorities. In a way we can think of fptp as being a kind of internal anarchy... in the same way that we do not expect the mayor of a town to be become heavily involved in the affairs of the population. We expect them to be an ambassador for the town from the viewpoint of external visitors but to play a diminished role internally. First past the post is like this. It is perfectly effective as far as external matters are concerned but almost absent as far as internal matters are concerned.

Why party loyalty leads to factionalism

Even though representation is broken down into constituencies... the mechanics of the first past the post system of voting (as compared against pr) are as though we are living in one giant constituency. We assume in any analysis that the party members are loyal to the party whips and there is complete discipline. Which is a reliable assumption given our experience. So then if constituency representation is determined by fptp then this will inevitably lead to a presidential-style system because of this discipline. The leader of each dominant party is the (de facto) leader of each constituency which that party holds. So in each constituency we are choosing between the leaders of the parties and not the actual direct representatives. If this is not the case it means nothing for a politician to join a party... in exchange for the ability to be the sole representative of the party in a seat the politician must give up loyalty to the party or leave. So we assume the politicians are loyal to their party. This being the case then each seat is a miniature version of the government as a whole and if one politician only is sent from each seat to parliament then we will have a presidential system. If there is not proportional representation at the constituency level then the government will not be proportional... because of the formation of political parties.

First past the post is a stable proposition

First past the post cannot be falsified because the government is a false concept. When we argue the merits of first past the post compared with proportional representation we rely on the premise of 'government' being true... but it isn't we are born and will die free. There is no government so the argument in favour of fair (and proportional) votes can never be won. That is not to say pr will never replace fptp... it is possible that either government or the people will demand it... only that we cannot make a case for pr (over fptp) through argument alone.

If there is a government then pr is preferable to fptp

If there is no government then it (clearly) doesn't matter whether we have fptp or proportional representation. The only reason to have any form of democracy at all is if there is a government and we seek to restrain it or to give it a mandate from the people. If there is a government then democracy is good... otherwise it is a tyranny or a dictatorship. Since (in the presence of government) democracy is good then we can further deduce that more democracy is preferable too. Then pr is preferable to fptp if there is a government. If there is not a government then it doesn't matter if we choose pr or fptp. To be consistent defenders of fptp must either be in the position of denying that the government even exists (which would seemingly make the conversation redundant) or that (in spite of the existence of government) democracy is a bad thing... and that government without democracy is better. To reject pr (in favour of fptp) is like being a slave and choosing to reject privileges offered to us by the owner. It is only a sensible thing to do if we deny that we are slaves to begin with. If government doesn't exist then pr cannot be preferable to fptp... if government does exist (and is a valid institution) then it must be better to have more democracy and to replace fptp with pr.

Fptp and pr are the same since they are both wrong

There is not much difference between proportional representation and the first past the post systems of voting... it's like arguing about which is the greater (or lesser) injustice. To even discuss the differences (if there are any) is to give legitimacy to the institution. We can only discuss the nuances of something which we think is good. If we do not need to have a democracy then we must be silent on preferences between fptp and pr otherwise we are supporting the state. To even express an opinion (on which voting system is preferable) is to give the impression of being in support of government.

Libertarian (anarchist) support for fptp is illogical

First past the post elections are collectivist so any party which supports this system can be said to be socialist. In a fptp system even the party of the centre-right is socialist because of its support for the fptp system... we assume both parties are against pr. Then both parties in a fptp are socialist. Even if the policies of the centre-right party are otherwise liberal the only policy which matters (as far as this party is concerned) is which voting system they support. If the party of the centre-right supports fptp then socialism is inevitable and the rest of their manifesto is redundant. If the party of the centre-right are opposed to electoral reform (in a fptp system) then socialism is inevitable... and both of the main parties support socialism. Labour rely on the support of the Tories for fptp... without Tory support for fptp Labour would rarely get into power. Tory support for fptp causes Labour to be popular. Labour needs the Tories but the Tories do not need Labour... the Tories keep Labour (and socialism) alive. Socialism requires fptp. Without fptp there would be no socialism.

First past the post elections are collectivist

First past the post is socialist because it ignores the votes of minorities and individuals. Any voting system which seeks to legitimise a government is left-wing if it ignores minorities. It is possible for voting systems to be something other than neutral... just because they are an abstract concept doesn't mean they are neutral in terms of government. We can imagine a country made up of many tribes... each of which are (is) loyal to their leader... if there is a presidential election in this country the largest tribe will win overall control unless the other tribes collaborate. This form of election is collectivist and bad for people who are not associated with the dominant tribe.

The right cannot win under fptp

Some things are impossible and it is impossible for the party of the centre-right to win fptp elections. The reason for this is that people on the (economic) right tend to be opposed to collectivism and for that reason they will be reluctant to vote for a collectivist party... as they are obligated to do under fptp. Fptp requires libertarian-minded people to act against their instincts to reduce the size of government which they will not do. This is why a victory for the centre-right under fptp is impossible.

Proportional representation is good for libertarians

People who support government and dictators do so out of fear of the alternative... they are scared of freedom. They do not realise that the source of many of their fears and concerns is the government. Fearful people support the government and dictators... people without fear generally encourage the reduction of the state and pr. People who are less fearful prefer pr.

Proportional representation is safer than fptp

First past the post is dangerous because it allows the political establishment to retain power. Anarchy is more stable and safer than government and fptp. Proportional representation is very similar to anarchy in that everyone is represented... anarchy is a more safe version of democracy than fptp.

Fptp discriminates against the smaller parties

It is natural for (democratic) government representation to be allocated in proportion to the quantity of votes. If this is not the case then some voters are losing out for no other reason than that they do not happen to affiliate themselves with one of the main parties and there is no reason to discriminate against this. There is no reason to discriminate against the (supporters of the) minority parties... which is what fptp does.

First past the post prevents anarchy

People do not like the government... and if we doubt this fact then tactical voting is evidence of its truth. If people like the government there would be no need for tactical voting because they would be happy to vote for either of the main parties... they might have a preference but they would still be voting with enthusiasm not malice. If people would prefer not to be restricted in choice then government is unpopular. (Government restricts choice.) People are trying to get rid of the government... to improve their choices... and fptp is stopping them from doing so. Fptp stops people getting anarchy.

Proportional representation is a form of anarchy

Proportional representation is a form of organised anarchy. If there is no government at all then there is (peaceful) chaos... and we can think of anyone who attempts a crime as being a state in their own right. Since it is good to lack order then we can deduce that proportional representation (pr) is better than fptp because the latter 'forces' voters into choosing from between the two main parties. Democracy is a form of anarchy because we are no longer lead by the government. Pr is more anarchic than fptp.

It is consistent for the government to support fptp

Tactical voting is bad because it means that voters are not getting what they want... and this always means freedom is being reduced. If people vote tactically for the centre-left party we can reliably say that they are more economically liberal than the party they are voting for. (Otherwise they would not be voting tactically but in earnest.) If people vote tactically for the centre-right party they are more socially liberal than the party. Economic and social authoritarians in each party prosper because of tactical voting.

Fptp is less bad for the left than the right

Due to the nature of fptp the party of the centre-left (Labour) is more likely to profit from tactical votes than its counterpart (the Tories). If we consider the hypothetical voter who hates the Tories but is opposed to taxation it could well be that they end up voting for Labour despite being opposed to taxation. The same does not happen in reverse the Tories do not attract anti-Labour voters who are otherwise socialist. We cannot easily imagine someone who is heavily socialist or even communist voting for the Tories... (since Labour are generally more socially liberal there would be no reason for them to do so) but we can imagine the reverse. Tactical voting only works to the detriment of the right under fptp. Social authoritarians tend not to be (economic) socialists... (Labour do not lose many votes to tough-on-crime communists) but economic liberals might be willing to eschew their economic principles if the Tories become too dogmatic with regard to social intervention. Labour tend not to lose tactical votes to the Tories but the reverse is not true. There are more (economic) liberals who vote Labour than socialists who reject Labour (for the Tories) due to Labour's social liberalism. The social liberalism of Labour is less offensive to bigots than the economic liberalism of the Tories. People prefer (economic) socialism with social liberalism than (social) socialism with economic liberalism. Social authoritarianism is more of a problem for people than economic authoritarianism. Fptp is more of a problem for the bigots on the right than the left... but it is bad for all of us because of these issues.

Proportional representation is never harmful

When we think about which voting system is the best we can assume that the electorate are not communists and do not want a (big) state. If they want a big state no voting system will be able to prevent it. So we might as well assume people want a small state... in which case pr is preferable and fptp prevents the people from reducing the size of the state. If fptp doesn't prevent the people from reducing the size of the state then the people are communists and it is hard to see how at least one of the parties wouldn't pander to that. Clearly the people are not communists... (they would be able to get communism under any democratic system... and they have not chosen to do so) and so then pr is preferable. Only if the people are communists would fptp be preferable but even then it would be able to offer very little protection. It would only be good if the people are stupid and vote for one of the parties out of loyalty. There is no reason to have fptp and even if the people are communists (which they are not) it would be able to offer no protection. And since they are not then pr is better and fptp can only be bad. Under no circumstances is fptp better and (since people do not vote out of loyalty) it can only produce more government than pr. There are no circumstances under which fptp produces a smaller state than pr would with the same electorate. Fptp produces a government of either the same size as that which would be produced under pr or larger. Pr governments are never larger than those produced under fptp.

Fptp is bad whether or not the state is unpopular

A common line of thinking (if not an explicitly stated argument) amongst people on the right of the political spectrum is that fptp is tolerable because it makes the state unpopular. That if we had pr the state would not be despised to the extent that it is currently and that is not something to be welcomed. But this is a fallacious argument for reasons which are immediately obvious. Any form of (state) tyranny will be despised by those who are a victim of it... it is no consolation that the perpetrator of the crimes is hated... that does not solve the problem by definition. There is no consolation in the unpopularity of the state under fptp.

Fptp has failed the test of proportionality

First past the post has failed the test for a suitable voting system. We know that fptp systems tend to result in the emergence of just two (main) parties. This is not an acceptable format for choosing our representatives... we want a system which enables people to vote for who they like without the risk of their vote being ignored. We want a system which is amenable to everyone including minorities and (all) individuals. A voting system that excludes some people is not suitable. Any system which results in the emergence of two main parties has failed the test and should be rejected. If a system does not provide proportionality it has failed.

Libertarians prefer proportional representation

To be right-wing is a form of bigotry usually associated with the church or something similar.... libertarians are neither of the left or of the right. We can generalise the right as being bigoted in terms of personal choices... the left are bigoted in terms of economics. Libertarians reject both of these forms of statist tyranny and for that reason they always support proportional representation. To not support pr and to be a libertarian is not a logical position. Even if we are a libertarian anarchist who wants no state at all... to be against pr (always in the context of fptp) makes no sense. The alternative (to pr) is not anarchy it is fptp... when we talk about preferences related to electoral voting systems it is assumed that anarchy is not one of the available options.

First past the post is a form of (state) bigotry

We are making a false (bigoted) assumption if we think that it will be fine to have fptp. Fptp leads to the emergence of a two-party system (usually) which is a problem in itself. It is bigoted to think that a two-party system serves (or even can serve) the interests of the people well. To support fptp (or even to be tolerant of it) is to be bigoted in and of itself. Bigots are fine with fptp because they do not see the problems associated with it.

The right will never relinquish fptp if they are bigots

We know from the law of the excluded middle that either something is true or it is not... there are no grey areas. But in countries where there is fptp (and even in countries where there is not) people are often referred to as being left wing or right wing. This is a false dichotomy because we might instead be libertarian. Fptp usually gives rise to a two-party system which divides along lines associated with left wing and right wing views. But if the system is more proportional these dividing lines break down. Just because someone is not right-wing doesn't make them left-wing... both positions might be false. The opposite of left-wing is not right-wing it is libertarian and the same holds for the right. A lack of (right-wing) bigotry is not communism which makes fptp a problem... we cannot (easily) exclude bigots from being involved in the party of the centre-right. Fptp gives us a choice between bigotry and communism.

First past the post is good for the right

First past the post protects egregious right-wing views because people vote tactically to exclude the left. If people can vote for whomever they like (under pr) then even right-wing views will be excluded because people can both reject the left and the right at the same time. Because under fptp voters must choose the least bad of two bad options this enables the right to do relatively well. Pr would make it much more difficult for right-wing views to be tolerated and get recognition because people would have the ability to exclude them. Fptp is good for the right but not for libertarians. Libertarians are not right wing.

Libertarians can't exclude the right because of fptp

The problem with fptp is that it (almost always) leaves us with only two parties to choose from. If we assume one of those parties will of the centre-right and the other of the centre-left then it is natural to expect that a libertarian would prefer the party of the centre-right... which we will call the Tories. However a problem arises when the Tory party supports some policies which are offensive to libertarians. Then a libertarian has no realistic choice. Under pr such a voter could just switch to one of many liberal parties and still have their vote be affective. Fptp makes it impossible for their (libertarian) vote to count and (at the same time) not to support some egregious right-wing views. With fptp we (as libertarians) are given a choice between voting for some offensive right-wing views and not voting at all... which is not to have been given a realistic choice. It is impossible (as a voter) to exclude the nasty right-wing views and still vote a for a party which is of the right. Fptp makes it difficult for libertarians to exclude the right.

Politicians are not representative of the people

Even in a democracy the people and the state are not the same thing. The state is made up of people who consider themselves proprietors of the country. They think of themselves as natural leaders or organisers and in some sense 'above' everyone else. The people are everyone else... those who go about their daily lives in peace. At elections the people have the chance to choose who leads them so there is a difference between the people and the leaders. In a democracy the leaders are the state... not the people... the people do not lead they accept and reject the leaders. The people pick and choose who gets the right to (be the state and) lead the country. This does not mean that the people are represented by the state since the people are not leaders themselves and are not necessarily even inclined to be leaders. The people are not the state in a democracy... only if the people are represented by their chosen legislators would the people be synonymous with the state. Legislators (and leaders) are not representatives.

Pr is good for the people and bad for the state

First past the post is not good for minorities and people who support minorities. Fptp is good if you want the needs and concerns of minorities to sidelined and marginalised. Fptp helps the politicians to ignore the needs and concerns of the people. Pr makes it more difficult for the political classes to ignore the concerns of the people... because it is good for minorities. Politicians hate minorities which means fptp is good for politicians and pr is bad for them. Politicians hate pr because it means they are obliged to listen to the concerns of the people. Fptp is bad for the people which is good for the politicians. The politicians and the people have conflicting interests and pr is favourable to the people. Fptp is good for the state and bad for the people.

It's bad that voters can't get what they want

It is natural to get rid of something if there is a problem with it. First past the post elections do not (generally) enable voters to express their true political beliefs. With pr people can vote for candidates which truly represent them... in the full expectation of gaining representation. We are not rewarded under pr for voting for an already popular candidate. Minorities and individuals do better with pr. If there is not a problem with pr and there is a problem with fptp then it is natural to switch. There is no reason not to switch to pr and if there is a problem with fptp then we should do so. Fptp is fine if there is not a problem with it (tautology) but if there is a problem with it then we should switch. It is better to have pr if there is a problem with fptp.

The left do well because of first past the post

If fptp is not a problem the left would not be so successful under this system. Parties of the left generally do very well under fptp despite many (even most) voters rejecting communism and coercion. The reason for this is that fptp is vulnerable to social authoritarianism on the right which makes voting for the party of the left the only viable option for many people. The fact of the success of the left under fptp demonstrates that it is a threat to liberty. The success of the left is largely caused by fptp... without fptp most countries would be broadly liberal and anti-totalitarian.

The left do better in terms of tactical votes

In a fptp system it is the party of the centre-left that do much better in terms of tactical votes... leading them to win more often. The party of the centre-left (Labour in the UK) do better because the manner in which the right is offensive makes it impossible for voters to 'hold their nose' and vote for the party of the centre-right. People vote for Labour to 'bash' the Tories but this dynamic doesn't work in reverse. People are less likely to vote tactically in favour of the Tory party to reject Labour. Being offended by the left is less alarming (it is generally assumed that the left are naive but well-intentioned) but if the right are oppressive in social matters then to many people that is much more unacceptable.

It's normal to have an unfair voting system

We have the first past the post system of voting for no particular reason... there was no thinking in the past to show that proportional representation is worse than fptp. If there was it does not exist today. Fptp is nothing more than an (unfortunate) artifact of history. To choose between fptp and pr is different from other political arguments in that there are no obvious belligerents. Everyone lives under the system of democracy chosen so it is not a matter of weighing the particular claims of one side or another. We are considering something abstract but shared. We are arguing not over what is true but what is best and these are difficult and frustrating arguments to be involved with.

The public will reject fptp if they understand it

If the electorate are aware that first past the post is a form of slavery they will reject it. The only reason any country suffers under fptp is that the electorate are ignorant of the fact that not to have pr is bad. If people understand the liberating nature of pr (and the suffocating nature of fptp) then we will have pr. The only obstacle to pr is the ignorance (and education) of the people. If the people are educated about pr we will have pr.

There is no freedom without democratic freedom

According to Duverger's law any political system involving first-past the post (or something similar) will eventually result in a two-party system. This is clearly bad for freedom because freedom relies on people being free to choose. If people cannot choose a political party which represents them they have no real representation. If minorities cannot find representation then individuals cannot find representation because the individual is a minority. Libertarians seek to maximise freedom which means they are instinctively drawn to electoral reform and pr. If someone is not interested in changing a fptp system to one which is proportional this is evidence that they are not interested in freedom... even if they openly state otherwise. Libertarians (and anarchists) always have a preference for pr wherever fptp exists.

Tories should support pr (they are not anarchists)

Conservative (Tory) support for fptp makes the state unpopular but this is inconsistent since the Tories are not anarchists. If the Tories are anarchists then it might make sense for them to support fptp... but by definition they are not. It is not possible to be both a (mainstream) political party and to be an anarchist. Anarchists are not Conservatives and so it makes no sense for the Conservative party to be in opposition to pr. Only if the Conservatives are genuine anarchists would it make sense for them to oppose pr. Tory opposition to pr suggests they think they are anarchists and do not see a contradiction in being a (mainstream) political party and being anarchists. Politicians can't be anarchists so the Tories should support pr. If Tory support for fptp is consistent then it would also need to be possible for them to be anarchists... which is impossible.

Labour support for fptp makes the state unpopular

Only Labour have an incentive to replace first past the post with pr. The Tories are very comfortable with the state not doing what people want and appearing unpopular... which is caused by fptp. The unpopularity of the state under fptp is not a contradiction for the Tories... but it should be for Labour. If Labour are supporters of the state and not anarchists it is natural for them to support pr. It is the fault of no other party (than Labour) that the state is unpopular because for the state to be unpopular is consistent with the philosophy of the Tories... and not a problem for them. The unpopularity of the state is the fault of Labour (opposition to pr) alone. The state is unpopular because Labour reject pr.

The state would be more popular with pr

First past the post is bad for the survival of the state... fptp hastens the arrival of anarchy because it fosters ill-feeling towards the state. If the state openly defends unfairness then it is unlikely that people will think favourably towards it. (The electorate is virtuous.) People might not mind the state so much if it fair and proportional. Because the state uses unfair fptp it is not very popular.

First past the post is out of date

First past the post in an out of date voting system. Modern elections require that the voter is able to get appropriate representation without voting tactically. Tactical voting is indicative of an old-fashioned system of elections. A modern system would enable people to vote for a party that broadly (and narrowly) reflects their interests and concerns. If there is more choice this means people are more likely to be able to get what they want.

Proportional representation is inevitable

It has been claimed that the government (since it is conservative) will always favour fptp... but the government is not always conservative. Sometimes it is more progressive than (some of) the people. The government can sometimes be progressive and in the case of fptp it is likely that those governments with fptp will eventually choose pr. Even if this is against the wishes of some conservatives in the country. Conservatives in the country will be ignored and the (progressive) government will eventually introduce pr.

Pr is the logical choice if there is a government

Anarchy is an alternative to government... not to democracy. Democracy is merely a form of government it is not an endorsement of the institute of government itself. Democracy is a means to control the government. Even though freedom is preferable anarchists accept that there is no viable alternative to democracy (if there is a government). Democracy within government is inevitable so pr is the logical choice.

First past the post is a problem for the people

Conservatism is a kind of political philosophy whereby changes which arise are routinely opposed (by the government) for no particular reason. Certain activities remain illegal not for any stated reason but because they have always been illegal. First past the post makes it impossible for voters to stop communism without voting for the Conservative party. It is not because people like conservatism (and reject progress) that the Conservatives do well... it is because of fptp. This voting system is bad for the country because the people cannot get what they want but it is helpful the to Conservative party. If the Tories are good for the country they would support pr... since pr is good.

The government will always favour fptp

It is perfectly natural that the government would want to keep fptp. The more democracy people have the more easily they can protect themselves from the government. It is unlikely that the government will ever oppose fptp.

Ignorance of banking is ignorance of the economy

If we assume that asset prices are surprisingly high (to those that have no understanding of banking) then we might wonder as to an explanation. It is my contention that 'high' asset prices are primarily caused by deposit insurance and bank inflation... but if someone doesn't know about this they may be confused. If we do not know about how banks cause inflation then we would have no reliable explanation for the high asset prices. Which means we would be confused. The only way to have a reliable picture of the economy is to be aware of the role of banks in causing inflation. If we do not know about bank inflation we do not understand (high asset prices and) the economy. Only people who understand banking understand the economy.

Without the state there would be no paper money

In a free market there is no prohibition on printing (and counterfeiting) any form of money. Which means that (in a free market) there would be no valuable paper money... since it could easily be counterfeited. The only possible form of paper money would be that with a very high level of encryption. The value of the paper monies we see in circulation today depends largely on the illegality of counterfeiting them. We know that paper money is not money and we can also deduce that... in a free market (since counterfeiting would be possible) there would be no paper money. It is only because of the state that paper money exists. Paper money relies on the state to exist.

Not even elections give the state validity

Without the consent of the governed it is not possible for a government to have valid authority. The people must consent for the government to be valid. But if people consent to something there is no reason to have elections. The very fact of there being elections demonstrates that the people do not consent. If the people consented there would be no need to have elections. Elections prove that the people do not consent and that (all forms of) government is invalid. If the government is valid then there would be no requirement for elections. The presence of elections proves that the government has no legitimacy. The government is not legitimate otherwise there would not be elections. Elections prove a lack of consent which proves that there should be no government... government is always without consent... there can be no consent for the government and so government is never legitimate... and elections are proof of this. If government is valid there would be no requirement for elections. Elections prove the validity of anarchy. The notion of there being consent of the governed is an oxymoron... government never has consent.

Banks are part of the state if they cause inflation

Only the state can cause inflation and so if banks are able to cause inflation we can deduce that they are part of the state. If banks are not part of the state they would not be able to cause inflation. Only the state can cause inflation and so banks are part of the state.

If something can be printed it is not money

Money is generally regarded to be the most (or one of the most) commonly-circulating units of exchange. Something which can be printed has no value and something without value will never serve as a legitimate form of money. People currently (and mistakenly) believe fiat currencies have value and are money but that belief is wrong. Something which can be printed is not money because it has no value. Something with no value will not circulate as currency. Money requires value and something which can be printed has no value. Money can't be printed... by definition.

If the state is real then banks (with di) print money

Money-creation by the (guaranteed) banking sector is not possible (that is to say banks don't print money) only because the government is invalid. We know that banks print money if fiat money is money so only if fiat money is not real money (and the government doesn't exist) do banks not themselves print money. If the government is valid (and fiat money is real) then banks print money. For it to be true that 'banks print money' requires that the government is a valid concept... which it is not... we are free. If we are not free and the government exists then banks print money. We are free so banks don't print money.

Banks print money if fiat money is money

Deposit insurance is the reason why banks can't fail... without deposit insurance we would have a free market system which would make fractional reserve banking more difficult. It is more accurate to say that a lack of deposit insurance would restrict money-creation to the (entirely) public sector. The reason for this stipulation is that with deposit insurance we do not really have a fractional reserve banking system. If deposits are guaranteed banks can't fail and it is then more accurate to think of them as full-reserve banks. (Despite their money-creation abilities.) Deposit insurance turns the formerly private banks into public institutions. Deposit insurance is why banks are not private... it nationalises banks. Monetary inflation by banks is not possible without deposit insurance. Money happens to be state credit (at this point in history) which means that once they have deposit insurance banks are able to print money. Only if fiat money is not real money can banks (with deposit insurance) be said to be unable to print money. Banks can print money if fiat money is money. To be a denialist of the fact that banks can print money requires also to be a cynic of fiat money... to be consistent. If fiat money is money then banks print money.

First past the post elections are immoral

Tories are illogical because they do not support (don't like) proportional representation. And there is no difference between logic and morality. The only reason to not support pr is if we are being illogical and we see no reason that votes cast for minority candidates should count equally. Being illogical is not a political philosophy... but nevertheless the Tory party often attract many votes and so many people are voting for an illogical (and therefore immoral) political party. It is natural that the Tories would not necessarily support pr because we know from evidence that they have been (and are) illogical... they often defend hurtful religious dogma for instance. If we are to have any (democratic) political system at all then morality demands that it is proportional.

Tories don't like proportional representation

If we assume that the political left (in the form of the Labour party) are generally in favour of expanding the reach of democracy then it is only the party of the centre-right who would oppose pr. Even though Labour might do badly under pr we can still reasonably expect them to support it since it is in line with their principles. However, to broaden the reach of democracy is not necessarily in line with the principles of the Tory party who are historically associated with the monarchy and the church. Only Tories (not Labour) oppose pr because they are associated with the old established hierarchies. Labour do not oppose pr and anyone who does is a Tory in all but name.

Fptp is either helpful to the govt or equivalent to pr

If there is any difference at all between fptp and pr then we can say that pr tends to result in coalitions... at least to a greater extent than fptp. If it does not then pr is largely equivalent to fptp. The pertinent difference between the two systems is that anyone can get elected under pr whereas with fptp only members of the one of the established parties have a chance. We know that fptp (often) results in government... if fptp doesn't tend to result in (non-coalition) government then (again) there would be no difference between the two systems. A tendency not to result in coalitions is a tendency to result in (single party) government. The only reason to oppose pr (from the standpoint of fptp) is to protect the government... if there is a difference (and a reason to oppose pr) at all.

Fptp (often) results in (single party) government

We know that without pr there is no mandate (for a single party) to rule... a government can only rule (with a mandate) if there is pr but due to the nature of pr elections we are very likely to get a coalition. Government requires the lack of a coalition (coalitions are not government) and almost always pr elections result in the requirement to form a coalition. Unless a pr election results in an overall majority for a single party then there can be no government under pr. Only with fptp can there be a single-party government... usually... and since all governments are single-party governments then (generally) only with fptp can there be a government. Coalitions are not government which means government (generally) requires fptp. Unless there is a (rare) single-party victory under pr then government requires fptp. Without fptp there is (almost always) no government. Governments are only formed under fptp or the rare case of a single-party majority under pr. With pr it's rare to get a government. With fptp we almost always get a government.

Without pr there is no mandate (for a party) to rule

First past the post enables a single party to gain overall control of the government. This means that the entire country is owned and controlled by one party and one leader. This is a form of slavery... even though we can choose a different leader (of the opposing party) at the next election. Whilst we can say that any form of government is equivalent to slavery... clearly pr is not so offensive as compared with fptp. With pr it is generally impossible for the country to be controlled by a single party and if they are it is because that party has been chosen above all others. With fptp the governing party does not have a similar mandate because often they get elected on less than half of the vote and even otherwise people are compelled to vote tactically. Single-party rule has a mandate only if it is elected proportionally... they do not have a mandate if they are elected via fptp because people have not been given a free choice. No (non-coalition) government has a mandate if it is not elected proportionally. And since coalitions are not governments then governments only have a mandate under pr... but (since coalitions are not government) it is very unlikely that a government with a mandate will ever exist because pr elections tend to result in coalitions and not an absolute majority for a single party. A government with a mandate can only exist if a single party gets an overall majority under pr... which is very unlikely to happen. No (single party) government has a mandate unless pr is used. Government mandates require pr.

Fptp is a problem if we do not want socialism

First past the post is problematic because it assumes everyone is sympathetic to the government... if we are agreed that the government has a valid purpose then to be asked to choose from only two possible candidates is not so bad as we assume we have been given a choice of the best available candidates. If we can choose from between the best from each party then we will not suffer too badly... so the thinking goes. But if we are a cynic of the government as a whole then fptp is problematic because the assumption that we want a good socialist no longer holds. Fptp is fine if we accept that socialism of one kind or another is required... then we can choose the best of the two available. But if we do not want any form of socialism then fptp gives us no choice and is bad. Pr is preferable if it possible that socialism is bad. Fptp is fine if we always want socialism.