First past the post is good for the rich

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