If there is enough land then everyone has a right to at least some of it sufficient that they are able to sustain themselves
Wednesday, 25 December 2013
First past the post is a form of anarchy
Most governments use democracy… that is to say that they derive their mandate from the electorate. A private club has no need to be accountable to the outside world and as such they are under no obligation to use democracy. But an anarchist would argue that a government has no authority above that of a private individual or club… that there is nothing special about a government. If governments are not special there is no reason for them to use democracy. If the state has a special obligation to the people then it is natural that it use democracy and furthermore we can argue that it should use a proportional system… but since governments are not special there is no such obligation. There is no reason to replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation because no government is valid whether elected or not and anarchy is true. The government is perfectly entitled to use first-past-the-post or whatever voting system it likes (including no voting system at all) because there is nothing special about the government. A private club may use fptp and so too the government can use fptp because there is nothing special about the government and it is not above the law even if it is popular and democratically elected.
First past the post is either neutral or bad
It is natural for the state to be democratically accountable because the purpose of the state is to serve the people. If democracy is bad for the state then the state is bad for the people. First past the post is less democratic than proportional representation which means that it might be protecting an unpopular state and since all states must be popular (democratic) to be valid it might be protecting an invalid state. First past the post might be protecting a bad state from the wishes of the people… the government might be different under proportional representation (than what it is with fptp). If there might be a different government with a proportional system then fptp is protecting a bad and invalid state and so then fptp itself is bad. Democracy is good if the state is unpopular and bad (we assume the people know their own interests) and if the state is popular then democracy will have no influence on it. Only non-democratic states can be bad. First past the post might be bad but states elected with proportional representation are never bad since they are accountable. Proportional representation is a guarantee that the state is not bad (otherwise democracy is a false concept). There is no reason for a good state (a popular state) to oppose proportional representation. People know what is in their own interests (otherwise democracy itself is false) which means that people like freedom and so then the more democratic the system in use the smaller the state will be. If first past the post is relevant it (only) protects socialism. It is impossible for fptp to protect freedom unless democracy is bad for freedom and the state is liberal (but if the state is liberal there is no need for democracy). Democracy is not bad for freedom and so then fptp is not liberal… although it might be neutral.
Tuesday, 24 December 2013
Proportional representation is logical
The nature of democracy is that the people are given ownership of the government via elections… but if the voting system does not make sure to provide proportional representation then this is not full democracy. If we cannot simply vote for our preferred candidate and expect to receive equal representation then voters will be motivated to vote tactically which means some candidates are favoured over others merely for being established which is to the detriment of democracy. If there is a government then to have democracy is a natural right and our natural rights have been violated if we do not have true democracy which is proportional democracy. Non-proportional democracy (such as first-past-the-post) is a violation of our natural rights and as such it is a form of slavery. It is the ownership of our votes by the (two) established parties. But since slavery is an inherently false concept (we cannot own people) then so too fptp is a false concept and it is a voting system which has no legitimacy. So (just as slavery doesn’t exist in a just world) first-past-the-post doesn’t exist in a just world and democracy cannot exist if it is not proportional. The purpose of democracy is to liberate the people and if we do not have proportional representation then the people are given less freedom than is possible for no justifiable reason (which contradicts the liberal assumptions of democracy). First-past-the-post is inconsistent with democracy. We own our own votes which means the only valid system is proportional representation.
Monday, 23 December 2013
Democracy is the truth
Democracy is good but the first-past-the-post system gives power to the state without it being democratic which means it gives illegitimate and tyrannical power to the state. Fptp insulates the state from the opinions of the people (which delays freedom). The state is absurd but it is not able to learn this since without democracy it will remain in place… people cannot easily reject the state if it not democratic which means that it remains ignorant and arrogant. The purpose of democracy is to enable the state to be answerable to the people but fptp restricts this process meaning that it remains ignorant. Democracy can awaken the government but fptp enables the state to remain asleep. With fptp the people can’t wake up the government because their votes don’t matter. First-past-the-post is a way for the state to switch off democracy and to be unanswerable to the people. But the power ultimately rests with the people so it is best for the state if it uses a more democratic system so that it is more accountable. It is better to know in advance if we are not doing a good job for our employers because otherwise we will be shocked when we are replaced. Fptp is a way for the state to stifle reality for a limited period of time (and slow down the progress of freedom). Eventually the people will get the freedom they want whether through fptp or otherwise… not even fptp can stop the truth.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
If democracy is bad then there should be no elections
If democracy is a true concept then the people should be given the power of the state and the state is answerable to the people. This means that there is no ‘elite’ and everyone has equal access to the power of the state. If democracy is the right approach then is it natural to have proportional representation because this gives each voter equal power (which is an assumption of democracy). If we should not have equal power and there should be an elite of legislators then democracy is wrong and there should be no elections. The first-past-the-post system which can be seen as partial democracy is inconsistent because if democracy is bad (and there should be an authoritarian elite) then there should be no elections at all… not even two-party elections. If democracy is true then only proportional representation makes sense. But if there is a state then it should be owned by the people (democracy is true) because for the state to be valid it must be beneficial to the people and in which case democracy will not be a threat to it. If the state is good then democracy is true (and good) which means that it is consistent to have pr. If unaccountable power is bad then pr is the only valid system and fptp is not valid. First-past-the-post is a rejection of (valid) accountability. There is no reason to subsidise a government elite (as fptp does) which means that there is no reason to have fptp and we should (to be free) have pr. Democracy is freedom unless the alternative is to have no state at all but since the alternative to pr is (generally) fptp and not anarchy then pr is freedom. Only if freedom is bad is fptp preferable to pr.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
The state is generally unpopular
We can associate the state with a lack of democracy since if people have full democracy there will be less state. People never demand democracy in order to expand the state… always to demonstrate the lack of popularity of the state and then to reduce it. The state is justified only if it is popular and democracy demonstrates the popularity or otherwise of the state. If the state is popular and democratic then we can have no problem with it but if it is not democratic (and unpopular) then it is bad… democracy ensures the state is never unpopular which means that it is never unjustified. We cannot complain if the state is popular which means that we can have no complaint if the state is fully democratic. Democracy ensures the popularity of the state. Good states do not mind democracy… only bad states object to elections. Democracy tends to reduce the size of the state because socialism is (almost) always state spending which tends to benefit most the people who get to spend the money first. The state is generally unpopular which means that democracy (and proportional representation) tends to reduce the size of the state. The state doesn't like democracy (a popular state is a small state) which means that it tends to prefer first past the post to proportional representation. Democracy is popular (unlike the state).
Saturday, 14 December 2013
There is never a reason to defer to the state
Whilst democracy is a requirement to have a valid state this does not mean that democracy justifies the state. Democracy is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of a valid state… which is to say that the state is never justified. We can know this because no good action requires the justification of it being committed by the state. If we seek to do good or to use force in a defensive way there is never a reason to defer to the state. All good actions can happen within the context of a stateless society and if the state is required to justify the action then we know that the action is wrong.
The state is never justified whether it uses democracy or not.
The state is never justified whether it uses democracy or not.
Thursday, 12 December 2013
Democracy is a requirement to have a valid state
It is difficult to get democracy from a state that doesn't want to give it to you because by definition you have no power. For a state to allow or extend democracy means that it is giving up power for no other reason than to let other people have power. This is an entirely selfless act assuming the power of the state is not being threatened by a lack of democracy. If the state and the members of the state are unthreatened then it is unlikely that it will give up power by extending the franchise of democracy. A lack of democracy is by definition socialist because it means the people have less ability to curtail the extent of the state but there is no inconsistency... it is perfectly consistent for the state to be entirely undemocratic. In this scenario we are reduced merely to a simple power-struggle. If an autonomous individual declares themselves to be the true state in contrast to the established state then they will be shown to be wrong when they are overwhelmed by the power of the (established) state. So then when the state is undemocratic there is no rhetorical argument to be made in favour of democracy all we can do is to appeal to the wisdom of the legislature and if that fails we hope that the (undemocratic) state falls through being overwhelmed. Only power can establish democracy and so then there is no solid argument to be made in favour of proportional representation and against the first-past-the-post system.
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
First past the post is not majoritarian
In most democratic systems to pass a law requires at least half of the legislature to support the proposal. And if the electoral system is proportional then this means that at least half of the voting population support the new law. But if the voting system is not entirely proportional it is possible for laws to be made and passed by parties which did not receive a majority of the vote. In the first past the post system (fptp) each seat is won by the party which receives the most number of votes… but this might not be a majority merely a plurality. So then we can have the government controlled by a minority party not by a coalition of parties which amounts to more than half of the electorate. In this way fptp is a kind of rule by minority since generally the winning party doesn’t get more than half of the votes. The fptp system subsidies the two largest parties such that even though they have only a minority of votes (not more than half) they are able to form a government without the need for a coalition. This form of subsidy is inappropriate since there is no reason to reject a system whereby leading parties must seek to form a coalition before they are able to pass laws. There is nothing wrong with a system of proportional representation which works very well in many countries and so then there is no reason to subsidise minority parties which do not have enough votes to form a government on their own. There is nothing in particular to be admired in single-party government. Democracy by its nature is a majoritarian concept… meaning that to have control of parliament generally requires more than half of the votes. There is nothing wrong with majoritarian democracy and there is no reason to subsidise any party (even a large one). First past the post is not majoritarian and so then it is not entirely democratic.
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Without proportionality there is no representation
Without proportionality representation has no meaning. We are not represented if our vote is not counted equally with that of other voters. The term ‘proportional representation’ is a tautology because the word ‘proportional’ is redundant. All representation is proportional and so then proportionality is a requirement for a representative democracy. We do not have a representative democracy if there is not a proportional voting system in use.
Valid states use proportional representation
There is no valid government which is not democratic and it is clear that the first-past-the-post system is not democratic. Governments which do not use a fully-proportional system cannot be said to be true and valid governments because they are not democratic. Democracy is not merely a nice thing to have it is a moral imperative and to restrict democracy is to restrict the rights of the people just as other forms of tyranny damage rights. For a state to be democratically accountable is a moral requirement and this means that states which derive their authority from fptp are invalid. Fptp is not a true democratic system and so then for a state to attempt to use this system is a violation of rights. States which use first-past-the-post are violating the rights of their citizens. There is no moral and valid state which uses fptp… to be valid a state can only use a proportional system.
If we need a state then fptp is aggressive
The nature of democracy is that the people are trusted to govern themselves. And so the government will be a reflection of the people… if they are good the government will be good and if they are bad the government will be bad. But since all species are inclined to protect themselves and by definition (relative to ourselves) this is good then we can say that people as a whole are good and that democracies are good. There is no argument against democracy because by definition what the people want is good for them… we cannot question a free choice (since there is no objective virtue). So then democracies are good merely because we cannot know for certain what is best for the people we can only let them (be free to) choose. We do not know better than the people what is good for them. Democracy is objectively good because it enables the people to choose their own leaders (whether or not the people are themselves good… whatever they want is good). There is never a justification to remove choice from people… even ourselves. To give people the most possible choice is a form of morality and so then democracy is moral and first-past-the-post (fptp) is immoral because it is less democratic than proportional representation. We can think of fptp as a form of contextual aggression because we have a requirement for a state (to have property rights) and so then given that we need a state fptp reduces choice and freedom unnecessarily… which is aggression. Fptp is contextually aggressive. We need a state and so then first-past-the-post is aggressive since it reduces the control over the state given to the voter. Proportional representation gives more control to the voter and so then to use anything else is a form of (contextual) aggression. If we need a state then fptp is aggressive.
Monday, 25 November 2013
Overall the people will choose a helpful government
Without government there would be no objective laws and so then the law and property would be determined by force alone. When we have government and a state then we can have courts to decide the law. If there is a state then there must be democracy so then since government is good then so too is democracy good. People will not vote for bad politicians by definition since it makes no sense for people to vote for something which will be harmful to them. The population as a whole will not vote to harm itself even if some small minority of people would like the government to do harm to the people… overall the people will (intend to) choose a helpful government. Unless the people are wrong (and we must assume that they are not… because otherwise that leads nowhere) then democracy is good. Since democracy is good then there is no reason to suppress it and there is no reason to use anything other than a fully-proportional system. To use anything other than full proportional representation is bad because democracy is good and the voters are good. We must assume that the state and the voters are good and so then there is no reason not to have pr… any system which is not proportional must rely on the assumption that either the state or the people are not good which is illogical as far as political science is concerned. We must assume that the people are good otherwise we can get nowhere… to assume otherwise advocates only authoritarianism which is a contradiction. If there is not authoritarianism then there is full democracy which can only mean a proportional system... anything else is either authoritarian or anti-statist.
To have peace and prosperity requires democracy
To have law requires that there is a state because otherwise we have no authority and no rights. Without a state when a crime is committed there is no means to (objectively) determine which party is in the wrong and which has the true claim to ownership of property. Without a state there is anarchy which is chaos and lawlessness because to determine who is the criminal in a dispute requires a third party opinion by definition which then is a state. To have peace and prosperity requires a state and so then it requires democracy. But if we have a first-past-the-post (fptp) system this is not fully democratic because there are systems which are more democratic which are available. To threaten democracy is to threaten the state which is to threaten peace (for the reasons given above) and so then fptp is a threat to peace.
Democracy is peace unless the state itself is always criminal (or if states can exist without democracy) and so then there is no reason to reduce democracy by using a fptp system (to do so reduces peace). If we reject pr then we are rejecting democracy itself which is to reject peace. But since peace and lawfulness are good then to reject pr is to reject something which is good… which is bad. Democracy improves the state because it makes it more accountable which improves the ability of the state to uphold justice.
Democracy is peace unless the state itself is always criminal (or if states can exist without democracy) and so then there is no reason to reduce democracy by using a fptp system (to do so reduces peace). If we reject pr then we are rejecting democracy itself which is to reject peace. But since peace and lawfulness are good then to reject pr is to reject something which is good… which is bad. Democracy improves the state because it makes it more accountable which improves the ability of the state to uphold justice.
Friday, 22 November 2013
Proportional representation is an obligation
Perhaps the most obvious and immediate voting system is the first past the post system where members of parliament are simply the candidate with the most votes in each constituency. There is no immediate contradiction with this system… it is only natural that the most popular candidate is elected but we find from experience that it tends to result in a two-party system which is harmful to democracy. If there is only one winner then voters will realise that voting for a lesser-known candidate will be detrimental to their interests because their vote will have no bearing on the outcome… so voters will seek to retain the value of their vote by choosing amongst established candidates. Whilst this system is clearly less democratic than other (proportional) systems there is a certain stability to this arrangement because voters cannot register their displeasure… by definition the system protects the ‘centrist’ parties which are tolerant of the fptp system. Voters cannot easily register their displeasure either at the two main parties or the system. But the state and the voters themselves have an obligation to make sure full democracy is being offered to (other) voters. We have an obligation to make sure we are not participating in or giving a mandate to an undemocratic system and so then we have an obligation to reject first past the post and to support only parties which support proportional representation. We should reject a party which doesn’t support proportional representation for that reason alone irrespective of its other policies. If a party doesn’t support proportional representation that alone should be sufficient for it to be unsuitable for consideration. We should consider only parties which support proportional representation and we have an obligation to reject parties which tolerate or even endorse fptp.
Monday, 18 November 2013
First past the post is temporary
We cannot have freedom without democracy because freedom without a state is impossible due to the absence of property rights and a state without democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. We cannot have freedom without a state and we cannot have freedom without a democratic state. But the first past the post (fptp) system of voting is not entirely democratic and tends to result in a two-party system as a result of the truth of Duverger’s law. Because of this we can say that fptp is not democratic and hence does not deliver as much freedom as is possible because it is like tyranny. To have the most possible freedom (necessarily within the context of a state) is to have proportional representation. If people are using the fptp system they will see that it tends to result in tactical voting and a two-party system but they will not like this naturally… otherwise it would not be called tactical voting. Since people do not like it they will want to change it and more and more people will come to prefer proportional representation and demand it of their elected officials. The fptp system is only temporary and will always be replaced with proportional representation wherever it (fptp) exists. People do not like fptp (by definition) and so then it is temporary and will be replaced.
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Democracy is not government
There is a difference between democracy and the state… that is to say that not all states are democratic. This is obvious when we consider one-party dictatorships (in this case we have a state with no elections) but we can also consider states which are fully democratic to be in some sense anarchist and absent. If we have full democracy then we can say to some degree that the people are entirely represented and so then they are autonomous and there is no meaningful ‘state’ to speak of. We generally think of the state as being something separate and apart from the people so then if the people are fully-represented there is no state. We can think of full democracy (direct democracy) as being a form of statelessness. If we have full democracy we do not have a state in the traditional sense.
Thursday, 31 October 2013
A proportional voting system is a natural right
Access to government is a natural right which is why we have elections and democracy. To prevent people for no good reason from participating in government and democracy is a crime and so to use any non-proportional voting system is a crime. It is a crime not to use a proportional voting system because this means that people are being excluded from the democratic process for no good reason. We might argue that criminals should not have the right to vote but someone who rejects the populist (fptp) parties is not by definition criminal. We are violating the rights of other people if we vote for and endorse a non-proportional voting system.
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Justice is authoritarian
People like to prevent crime but in order to do so we require a government and an authoritarian system of courts. Because justice doesn't work without some kind of authority we can say that justice is authoritarian and statist. And since people like peace and justice any prevention of democracy will lead to less justice because this will mean that the (anti-crime) intentions of the people are thwarted. People are instinctively authoritarian (and statist) and so then any lessening of democracy as with the first past the post system will tend to reduce crime prevention. First past the post (fptp) helps to protect the criminal because it is a threat to democracy and the state. Democracy strengthens the crime-preventing aspects of the state and so then fptp weakens the state in this sense (it might help other aspects of the state).
Monday, 28 October 2013
Only Labour benefit from first past the post
The problem with the first past the post system of voting is that it tends to reduce the amount of viable parties to just two. The reason for this is that voters react to how they expect the rest of the electorate to vote and they end up supporting candidates which are already popular. But this is bad for freedom and it is bad for democracy. Democracy tends to reduce the size of the state (if it doesn't it serves no purpose) and so then if the choice is reduced to just two parties this will be detrimental to freedom.
Liberals on the right tend to prefer freedom and they like democracy but this means that a centre-right party which opposes democracy (and supports first past the post) will be unappealing to liberals who would naturally support such a centre-right party. First past the post makes both of the main parties unappealing to liberals because they support democracy and then by definition oppose fptp. Because liberals will generally reject a party which supports fptp and because (as a rule) both parties in a fptp system support fptp... liberals will be more disenfranchised by fptp than the left. It is the left who do better with fptp because liberals who would tend to be on the right are repulsed by the two-party system and so those votes are lost meaning that the left take power. First past the post is helpful to the left because liberals will reject (both) fptp parties meaning that only non-liberals remain. First past the post is bad for liberalism which means it makes no sense for anyone but a socialist to support it. In a first past the post duopoly there is only one party which truly benefits from the lack of choice and it is the party of the left. There is no benefit to the right to be derived from first past the post... not even for the party of the centre-right (such as the Tories) because their support for fptp will drive liberal voters away... only Labour benefit from first past the post.
Liberals on the right tend to prefer freedom and they like democracy but this means that a centre-right party which opposes democracy (and supports first past the post) will be unappealing to liberals who would naturally support such a centre-right party. First past the post makes both of the main parties unappealing to liberals because they support democracy and then by definition oppose fptp. Because liberals will generally reject a party which supports fptp and because (as a rule) both parties in a fptp system support fptp... liberals will be more disenfranchised by fptp than the left. It is the left who do better with fptp because liberals who would tend to be on the right are repulsed by the two-party system and so those votes are lost meaning that the left take power. First past the post is helpful to the left because liberals will reject (both) fptp parties meaning that only non-liberals remain. First past the post is bad for liberalism which means it makes no sense for anyone but a socialist to support it. In a first past the post duopoly there is only one party which truly benefits from the lack of choice and it is the party of the left. There is no benefit to the right to be derived from first past the post... not even for the party of the centre-right (such as the Tories) because their support for fptp will drive liberal voters away... only Labour benefit from first past the post.
Saturday, 26 October 2013
Civilisation doesn't work without property rights
To have property rights requires the consent and agreement of other people. It means nothing to have property rights in isolation. If a single person claims to own the world then this is clearly meaningless because other people will disagree... so then property rights are meaningful only in the context of a state or something approximating to a state. And because civilisation doesn't work without property rights then the state is good and necessary. Anarchism (defined by statelessness) is not a valid approach because it yields no property rights so then we must have government and by implication we must have democracy.
But there are two kinds of democracy there is proportional democracy and there is the two-party first-past-the-post system. Because the state is good it makes no sense to deprive people of their democratic rights... it makes no sense to exclude some voters from the democratic process. It is generally voters who support the minority parties who are excluded by first-past-the-post and there is no reason to exclude these voters from government (since government is good). If government is good it is inconsistent for the government to arbitrarily exclude some voters from the government due to their support for a minority party.
Anarchy is a false concept because it does not yield civilisation and property rights and it is for this reason that proportional representation is preferable.
But there are two kinds of democracy there is proportional democracy and there is the two-party first-past-the-post system. Because the state is good it makes no sense to deprive people of their democratic rights... it makes no sense to exclude some voters from the democratic process. It is generally voters who support the minority parties who are excluded by first-past-the-post and there is no reason to exclude these voters from government (since government is good). If government is good it is inconsistent for the government to arbitrarily exclude some voters from the government due to their support for a minority party.
Anarchy is a false concept because it does not yield civilisation and property rights and it is for this reason that proportional representation is preferable.
Friday, 25 October 2013
A lack of choice is more consistent with illiberalism
If the left is defined by authoritarianism and specifically economic authoritarianism then it is clear that people who hold this ideology will be less offended at a lack of democratic choice. If the left is illiberal and authoritarian there will be less difficulty for people of the left to vote for the Labour party than for the rest to vote for the Tories. It is more difficult for someone who is anti-authoritarian to vote for the Tories than it is for someone on the left to vote for Labour since a lack of choice is more consistent with economic illiberalism. And it is for this reason that first past the post elections tend to favour the left.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Without democracy we have dictatorship
If anarchy is not possible then we need a government but there are many different kinds of government. Principally governments can either be democratic or undemocratic. If anarchy is impossible then we might think of government as a necessary evil and so then we would want to make it as democratic as possible. For a government to not be democratic is equivalent to a dictatorship which is a crime because it is a form of government which is not democratic. To have a government which is not democratic is similar in nature to slavery in that the people are owned without their permission. At least with democracy the objects of the state (the people) are able to in some sense refuse. They cannot refuse on an individual level but they can refuse collectively which is as much as is possible. Democracy is like a free market in that people can refuse what they are being offered and in contrast dictatorship is like communism in that people cannot refuse. Dictatorship is a crime because (we must assume) government is a requirement and to have less democracy than is possible is a form of slavery since it is through democracy that the people are able to free themselves from the state. Without democracy we have dictatorship which is a form of slavery and a violation of our natural rights and a crime. Dictatorship is a crime because it is possible to have democracy and clearly democracy is more liberal than dictatorship (the people have a choice). Democracy is more liberal than dictatorship and so then we can deduce that dictatorship is a crime.
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Proportional representation is good for property rights
Democracy is the means by which the people are able to protect themselves and their property form the state. And so then if there is not sufficient democracy the state will be able to violate the rights of the people. If we assume that property rights are derived from the state then without adequate democracy the people will be subject to violations of their property... which is crime. Democracy protects the people from crime... perpetrated either by the state in the form of communism or by individual criminals. It is the state which we expect to protect us from crime in a democracy and so then if democracy is compromised then so too is our property compromised. Democracy is synonymous with strong property rights and so then the more democratic the state in which we live the better the property rights. If we do not have fully-proportional elections then we do not have the most strong property rights possible. A lack of democracy (such as first past the post) is helpful to criminals either public (the government) or private.
Property rights are synonymous with democracy and so then the most democratic system (proportional representation) will preserve property to the greatest extent. To support the first past the post (fptp) system is to damage democracy and damage property rights.
Property rights are synonymous with democracy and so then the most democratic system (proportional representation) will preserve property to the greatest extent. To support the first past the post (fptp) system is to damage democracy and damage property rights.
Sunday, 13 October 2013
First past the post is not democratic...
We can only be in government if we have been elected democratically... if we seek to form a government then we must seek (and secure) a mandate from the people. If we do not hold elections and gain a mandate from the people then we are not a government we are a tyrant. To rule people without elections is arrogant tyranny. It is arrogant because we have assumed that the people (who we treat as subjects) are our subjects. We assume that we are the government even though we have held no election. Only with democracy is government valid and so to oppose elections and yet still claim to be a government or to endorse government is authoritarian and arrogant. All governments must be elected democratically. True government is that which is democratic and has a mandate from the people. Government without democracy is tyranny.
Politicians support proportional representation
It makes no sense for a politician or an aspirant politician to support anything other than a proportional voting system. If someone seeks elected office then we can assume they are not an anarchist and that they endorse the validity of the state. A politician is a hypocrite if they claim to be an anarchist so we must assume all politicians are statists and not anarchists. All statists must be in favour of proportional representation because it is the most democratic system available to the legislature and democracy is the only valid form of government. Statists support pr and so then the Tories are being hypocrites (denying their statism) when they claim to support first past the post. Only a hypocrite politician could argue that fptp is a preferable system.
Tories support proportional representation
If we assume that the establishment are fewer in number than can win an election it is apparent that first past the past favours the left. It is a contradiction for the great body of people to vote for the narrow elite and so then fptp will favour populists. Proportional representation in contrast favours no one but the electorate.
People will not vote for the aristocracy and so then it is consistent for everyone on the right to support a fully-democratic system and not fptp. The Tories cannot win with a two-party system because they are perceived as the party of the elite. Since the Tories cannot win with fptp it is important to have proportional representation so that coercive leftists do not gain a monopoly.
People will not vote for the aristocracy and so then it is consistent for everyone on the right to support a fully-democratic system and not fptp. The Tories cannot win with a two-party system because they are perceived as the party of the elite. Since the Tories cannot win with fptp it is important to have proportional representation so that coercive leftists do not gain a monopoly.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
Proportional representation is a natural right
If there is a government it has an obligation to use a fair voting system which ensures representation for all voters... which means it must use proportional representation. For a government to fail to use pr is to violate the rights of the people.
The natural rights of the voters have been violated if anything not resembling proportional representation is used.
The natural rights of the voters have been violated if anything not resembling proportional representation is used.
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
First past the post is good for no one
There can only be two possible reasons to reject proportional representation in favour of fptp. We can either be of the opinion that (unaccountable) government is good (so we do not want it threatened by democracy) or alternatively we can hold the view that democracy strengthens government and that without democracy to constrain it there would be less government. In the context of choosing between fptp and pr we cannot claim that democracy enhances government because the alternative to pr is not anarchy it is fptp (and fptp does not destroy the government). Fptp is not anarchy so we cannot claim that to reject pr means that there is no government... democracy always provides accountability and reduces government. Since using a fptp system voters still must choose which party they want to win this means that the left can win. Reducing the choice available to simply two parties doesn't encourage liberals to support the Tories. Since (centrist) voters are not coerced into supporting the Tories with a two-party system then fptp can only offend liberal voters which is to the detriment of freedom or be neutral. If voters are generally leftist (and democracy leads to big government) then fptp ensures a Labour victory. If democracy is not synonymous with government then it reduces the government and the only reason to reject it is if we support the Labour party or equivalent.
First past the post can only be harmful because people are not compelled to vote for the Tories in a two party system and it is likely that they will let Labour win. If the people are socialist then fptp will result in a Labour victory and if they are not then we would want to have the most democratic system possible to enable the people to free themselves.
Democracy can never impose freedom on the people... any restriction of choice will lead to bad outcomes because intelligent people are less likely to be willing to be (electorally) coerced into voting tactically so we lose intelligent votes. Nothing can prevent a socialist electorate getting socialism (not even fptp) but forcing liberals to choose between two bad options is harmful. Intelligent people can see that fptp is harmful if the people are liberal but it is not intelligent people who are in control by definition.
First past the post can only be harmful because people are not compelled to vote for the Tories in a two party system and it is likely that they will let Labour win. If the people are socialist then fptp will result in a Labour victory and if they are not then we would want to have the most democratic system possible to enable the people to free themselves.
Democracy can never impose freedom on the people... any restriction of choice will lead to bad outcomes because intelligent people are less likely to be willing to be (electorally) coerced into voting tactically so we lose intelligent votes. Nothing can prevent a socialist electorate getting socialism (not even fptp) but forcing liberals to choose between two bad options is harmful. Intelligent people can see that fptp is harmful if the people are liberal but it is not intelligent people who are in control by definition.
Monday, 7 October 2013
The government is unpopular so democracy is good
The oppressive nature of the first past the post voting system must be clearly evident to anyone who has even for a short time examined elections. It is clear that in long-established democracies which use fptp that the system tends to result in the emergence of a two-party system because this maximises the utility of each voter's vote. If someone knowing this still prefers the use of fptp then it can only be because they do not like democracy itself and they wish to (knowingly) oppress voters. Perhaps they think that democracy itself is an invalid concept and that the autocratic government should not be challenged. To know that fptp frustrates the voters and to still endorse it shows that such a person is comfortable to allow the state to reject the views of the people. To accept the truth of Duverger's law and at the same time defend fptp means that such a person is in defence of tyranny. Someone who does not (knowingly) defend tyranny and yet still defends fptp must be in denial of Duverger's law. If someone accepts that fptp tends to result in tactical voting and yet is unperturbed by this fact is someone who is not offended by tyranny. Of all the people who defend fptp it is only those who deny the existence of (the truth of) Duverger's law who are not tyrants. People who defend fptp are tyrants unless they are ignorant of Duverger's law.
Democracy is good and we should have more of it
The government is merely the most powerful collection of people within a geographical area. This means that unless you consider yourself to be part of the government you do not like it. It is for this reason that democracy tends to reduce the size of the state... because most people do not align themselves with the government. So then democracy is the best form of government... there can be no better system (of choosing) because it is the people who most dislike the state... politicians themselves naturally do not dislike the state and so it is only the people (not politicians) who would reject the state.
It is for this reason that a two-party system doesn't serve the interests of the people... because the people do not like the state they want less of it but the smallest of two main parties is still large. The smallest of many parties is much smaller than the smallest of two.
Democracy is the best form of government and its dissemination is to be encouraged wherever there is government and since proportional representation is more democratic than fptp it should be used in preference. It is natural to have a preference for proportional representation because democracy is the means to reduce the size of the state and since more people identify with the people than the politicians democracy reduces the size of the state.
It is for this reason that a two-party system doesn't serve the interests of the people... because the people do not like the state they want less of it but the smallest of two main parties is still large. The smallest of many parties is much smaller than the smallest of two.
Democracy is the best form of government and its dissemination is to be encouraged wherever there is government and since proportional representation is more democratic than fptp it should be used in preference. It is natural to have a preference for proportional representation because democracy is the means to reduce the size of the state and since more people identify with the people than the politicians democracy reduces the size of the state.
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Bad governments use first past the post
The problem with anarchy is that we have no objective means to apprehend criminals. The truly anarchist society would enforce laws via a kind of vigilante system where there is no overall (objective) law-maker. The advantage of government is that no one is more powerful than the government so no one can do a crime against the government (to do so would be a revolution). This means that typical (petty) criminals are not able to exploit their relative power over their victims without being liable for arrest. It is the government which enacts the just law. Since criminal gangs of some kind can be expected to arise in anarchist systems we can see that they are never free from crime and warlordism. Since government prevents warlordism it is good... and if government is good then it is consistent that it use the most democratic system available to it. Since the government is good it would be perverse for it to oppress the people with an undemocratic voting system. It is consistent for the government to use proportional representation since the government is good. We do not have a right to be a government and exclude voters from power using first past the post. Government has no right to use fptp it must use some form of proportional representation.
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
First past the post is offensive
The nature of property rights is that they are antagonistic. Where there is a property dispute there will be opposing sides who each claim to own a piece of property. If people agree on the correct ownership of property there is no dispute of course. If the role of government is at least in part concerned with arranging the internal property of a country (and not only concerned with external affairs) then we see why proportional representation is favourable. Without proportional representation (pr) elections will tend to devolve into a two-party system which doesn't allow people to truly express their view on internal property. If both of the main parties are incorrect in their assessment of particular property claims then there will be no form of redress available to the voter. If there is proportional representation then property claims of many different types can be reflected in parliament.
Crime is invisible if it is not recognised by at least one of the two main parties in a fptp system. Democracy is a tool against crime and if we have the fullest expression of democracy then we will have the least amount of crime. People do not like crime but if there is insufficient democracy available to the people then the government will often fail to apprehend the criminals and they will go free. Democracy enables the people to reject crime but if there is not enough democracy this mechanism is oppressed.
People like freedom because it is the opposite of crime so then if we oppress democracy we oppress freedom.
Crime is invisible if it is not recognised by at least one of the two main parties in a fptp system. Democracy is a tool against crime and if we have the fullest expression of democracy then we will have the least amount of crime. People do not like crime but if there is insufficient democracy available to the people then the government will often fail to apprehend the criminals and they will go free. Democracy enables the people to reject crime but if there is not enough democracy this mechanism is oppressed.
People like freedom because it is the opposite of crime so then if we oppress democracy we oppress freedom.
Saturday, 28 September 2013
Proportional representation is fair representation
For law to be valid the legal system needs some central authority to which to defer... this doesn't mean the legal system is necessarily aggressive or authoritarian in nature merely that there needs to be some arbiter of truth. In the past this has been provided by monarchs and now it is generally the government chosen by the people in a democracy. Without a government there can be no valid law because there is nothing to determine (objective) truth.
The problem with first past the post is that even though there is a democracy which should unite the people... the fptp system divides the electorate into two separate parts for no reason. There is no advantage to the few-winner first past the post system. There is no reason to restrict the number of winners in each constituency to only a small number. We can have multiple-member constituencies. It is unusual to restrict the choice available to voters in this way (to use fptp) and so then it is normal to have a more proportional system. Proportionality in representation is fair and so we can describe proportional representation as fair representation. It is reasonable to describe 'proportional representation' as fair representation and this more accurately defines the distinction between the two systems. It is because proportionality is fair that adherents advocate it and so there is no reason not to describe pr as fair representation.
The problem with first past the post is that even though there is a democracy which should unite the people... the fptp system divides the electorate into two separate parts for no reason. There is no advantage to the few-winner first past the post system. There is no reason to restrict the number of winners in each constituency to only a small number. We can have multiple-member constituencies. It is unusual to restrict the choice available to voters in this way (to use fptp) and so then it is normal to have a more proportional system. Proportionality in representation is fair and so we can describe proportional representation as fair representation. It is reasonable to describe 'proportional representation' as fair representation and this more accurately defines the distinction between the two systems. It is because proportionality is fair that adherents advocate it and so there is no reason not to describe pr as fair representation.
Thursday, 26 September 2013
First past the post is a form of democracy
If there is a government then democracy is the most liberal possible arrangement. Politicians must respect the wishes of the people even if the people appear to be communist in the eyes of the politicians. If the people have voted for communism there is nothing that can be done about it. We cannot protect ourselves from democracy (democracy does not harm us) because if democracy is liberal there is no threat and if it is communist the people themselves are communist and to have no democracy is no improvement.
There is nothing better than democracy if there is a state so then it is not possible to impose liberalism on the people.
There is nothing better than democracy if there is a state so then it is not possible to impose liberalism on the people.
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Proportional representation is good for the people
The purpose of democracy is to give power to the people because it is preferable that power it taken from the state and given to the people. If too much power rests in the hands of the state then full communism results which ends with starvation and poverty. Since there is either government or the electorate (and no third status of people exists) then what gives power to the state must take it from the voters. If the voters are enfranchised then the state is not. If first-past-the-post is good for the state (which it is) then it is bad for the people since there is no other entity (the middle is excluded). All democracy is good for the people and bad for the state which is why proportional representation is better for the people than fptp... due to it being inherently more democratic. Proportional representation is more democratic than fptp because it enables voters to be represented by someone who much more closely matches their views and interests. And so pr is better for the people.
Tuesday, 24 September 2013
First past the post is a form of oppression
There is no government which is not democratic... that is to say that if a 'government' has failed to hold valid elections then it cannot claim to be a government. Since the first-past-the-post method of electing officials is not proportional and excludes minority parties then it is not democratic and no organisation using (only) this system can claim to be official. No valid government uses fptp alone. Only governments which use a fully-proportional system are valid. There is no government which is not proportionally elected.
Fptp is anarchy in the same sense that totalitarian communism is anarchy because it is invalid and chaotic.
Democracy is less absurd than the use of first-past-the-post.
Fptp is anarchy in the same sense that totalitarian communism is anarchy because it is invalid and chaotic.
Democracy is less absurd than the use of first-past-the-post.
Thursday, 19 September 2013
No one has a right to use first past the post
The problem with the fptp system is that voters are denied what is their natural right... which is to be respected as a voter. If it is a necessity to have a government then it must naturally be democratic and further it must not be susceptible to Duverger's law ("plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system"). If the voting system is susceptible to Duverger's law (as all single-winner elections are) then the natural democratic rights of the people have been denied. We have a right to be free from Duverger-susceptibility and so we have a right for the government not to use first past the post.
It is not true to say that the government and politicians necessarily know what is best for the country... this is why we have elections. It is the people in a democracy who know what is best and it is they who must take precedence but with fptp the voter doesn't take precedence as they should.
It is not true to say that the government and politicians necessarily know what is best for the country... this is why we have elections. It is the people in a democracy who know what is best and it is they who must take precedence but with fptp the voter doesn't take precedence as they should.
Sunday, 15 September 2013
First past the post is anarchy which is good
The advantage of a first past the post system is that it makes the problem of government obvious to everyone. If government is a valid concept then it would not lead to tactical voting because all forms of government would be acceptable and non-threatening. The prevalence of tactical voting (under fptp) shows that people not only dislike the main parties but also that they dislike the government itself. If government is to be valid it must be democratic and so then it must use proportional representation and if pr is not in use then the government is invalid. So then pr legitimises government more than first past the post... which is good only if we want to legitimise the government. If we do not want to legitimise the government then there is no reason to have pr and there are reasons to have fptp.. because it frustrates voters. There can be no valid government without pr so fptp provides no valid government and is to be welcomed.
First past the post is preferable because it invalidates government itself. There is anarchy if fptp is in use which is why fptp is a good system.
First past the post is preferable because it invalidates government itself. There is anarchy if fptp is in use which is why fptp is a good system.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Democracy helps to reduce government crime
If crimes are to be prevented then there must be a government to arrest criminals. Generally criminals are bad people who do not stop unless they are confronted by force and when we use force to stop a criminal we are being a state. Because of the categorical imperative we must 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction'. That being the case no one can be a criminal and there must be a state to remove criminals from society. We can assume that without punishment (exclusion) criminals will continue to be criminals so we need a state to prevent crime. And to prevent crimes of the state we need a democracy so that we can protect ourselves from state theft and slavery. We need the state to protect us from individual criminals and we need democracy to protect us from crimes enacted by the state itself. If there is less democracy (fptp) then the state will be able to do more crimes than otherwise. If there is a less democratic system such as fptp then government crime (communism) will be easier to enact. The government will find it easier to enact its criminal communist programs if there is not a sufficiently democratic system in place.
Proportional representation helps to reduce communism because it helps to reduce government crime.
Proportional representation helps to reduce communism because it helps to reduce government crime.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Fptp is a subsidy which should not be used
There can be no government which uses first past the post because without using the most democratic system the government has no legitimacy. First past the post is not as democratic as it could be and so the government has no right to use it and a government which does use it has no right to exist. Only governments which use proportional representation (or a similarly representative system (assumed to be synonymous in all further discussion here)) have a right to exist. If proportional representation is not in use then the voter has a right to claim that they are not represented and hence that the government is illegitimate. If the government is good it will not use first past the post and so (since government is good) governments can only use pr. The only reason for a government or a political party to use first past the post is the fear of losing power due to the loss of tactical votes... which means the loss of power due to the use of a more fair system. So the only motivation to use fptp is malign. Parties which use and advocate fptp are doing so only for their own interests and in the case of governments this is illegitimate (the only reason to have a government is for good reasons). Only bad politicians would knowingly use fptp and since all politicians are good or useless then politicians cannot use fptp. Fptp gives an advantage to the big parties for which there is no justification and so it should not be used.
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
Without pr there is no government
First past the post is based on a false concept because we own our own vote which means that all votes must be treated equally and pr must be used. If there is not a form of proportional representation in place then the votes have not been respected equally and a crime has been committed. To not use pr or a system similar to it is a crime.
Monday, 9 September 2013
Dictatorship is aggressive
First past the post is aggressive because we have a right to choose who we are represented by. We have a right to direct representation and as such we have a right to be free of first-past-the-post. We have a right to not have first-past-the-post imposed upon us because it is a form of aggression because the government defines what is and isn't a crime. If we do not have true democracy then the government is a criminal tyranny and aggressive. The government is not aggressive (by definition) if it is democratic... democracy is never aggressive. Governments that do not use proportional representation or its equivalent are being aggressive since to be a government without democracy (a mandate) is a crime. The mandate for the government is derived from a fair voting system only so anyone who claims to be the state without having used a fair system is lying. There is no government without pr. Government is force and force has no right to exist if it is not sanctioned and approved by the community so the government cannot exist without democracy.
Democracy is a natural right
Government is required for property rights and the objective rejection of crime but it must be owned and controlled by the people. If the government uses proportional representation then we have a democracy but otherwise we do not. There can be no democracy without proportional representation or something like it... if we have first-past-the-post and must vote tactically then we do not have a democracy. If we do not have a democracy then we have anarchy because no state is valid without elections. There is no valid form of government that is not a democracy. Democracy is required for a valid government but if the government uses only fptp then it is not valid. The only form of valid elections are proportional elections (fptp elections are invalid). Democracy must be proportional... we don't have a democracy if we are using first-past-the-post.
First past the post is undemocratic
The only means to be free from the state is to have democracy and so then we can deduce that democracy is fundamentally liberal. Since statelessness is impossible (there would be no property rights) then freedom requires democracy and any suppression of democracy is fundamentally illiberal. That which is not liberal is a crime because we own ourselves so fptp is a crime. If we own ourselves then we own part of the government (democracy is true) and any attempt to stifle democracy (as with fptp) is a violation of our right to be part of the government. First past the post (fptp) excludes people from government which is a violation of their rights and a crime.
Saturday, 7 September 2013
Choice is a natural right
In a liberal society we have a right to do everything which is not a crime so then we have a right to use proportional representation. (And to oppose this right is a crime.) To use anything other than proportional representation (pr) such as (to use) first-past-the-post is a crime because it reduces choice for the voter. If we reduce the choice of other people this is a crime and fptp reduces choice. To reduce choice is a crime which means that a voting system which encourages people to vote tactically in order to make sure their vote is not wasted is a crime since the choice of the voter has been reduced. The two-party fptp system reduces choice for the voter and for that reason it is a crime.
Friday, 6 September 2013
First past the post is sufficiently democratic
For there to be a state requires that there is a democracy... if there is no election there is no valid government. To have a government with no election is a form of arbitrary rule which is invalid... it is the democratic process which gives the state its mandate. There can be no state without democracy. But it cannot be said that the first-past-the-post system is not democratic. It is clearly true that elections have taken place even if the outcome is not proportional. So then a fptp election is enough to establish a state. Since the state is valid if it has used fptp then to argue for more democracy is only to complain about preferences... the fundamental requirement of democracy has been satisfied and it is for this reason that arguments for pr are often ignored. It is enough that the state has been elected with some democracy.
Thursday, 5 September 2013
First past the post is a crime
Governments are always proportional and to have a government elected by any less democratic means is a crime. So to use the first-past-the-post system to elect a government is a crime because the government elected will be illegitimate. (Governments without legitimacy are criminal.) The only valid system of democracy and by extension government is one where the voters have a true choice and are represented by someone who reflects their views. Only direct democracy is valid and proportional representation is a form of direct democracy because the representatives are very closely aligned to the voters. There is more choice with pr and so the views of the voters will be properly reflected by the chosen politician. People who advocate fptp are advocating a crime.
Monday, 2 September 2013
Pr is a natural right if there are more than two people
Since we are not alone in the world and other people exist then it is natural to have a government and further it is natural to have a democracy. No state can be valid if it does not have a mandate from the people which is derived from democracy. All states must be democratic and if there are more than two people in the world then it is a requirement to have a state... otherwise property rights will be determined by force alone.
If there are only two people then it can be assumed that each will vote for themselves and there is no need for (government and) democracy. It is when there are more than two people that a state can be valid and the majority can protect themselves from the aggression of the minority.
If there are more than two people it is natural and preferable to have a democratic government so that property rights are determined by consensus and not theft. It is a natural right to form a government if it is democratic and by extension full democracy is a natural right. (We have no right to form a state without democracy.) We do not have full democracy if we must vote tactically as with first-past-the-post and so pr is a natural right. Proportional representation is a natural right because whilst we have a right to form a democratic government we do not have a right to oppress democracy. Since we do not have a right to oppress democracy (and yet we have a right to form a government) then pr is a natural right.
None of the above is inconsistent with the non-aggression principle.
If there are only two people then it can be assumed that each will vote for themselves and there is no need for (government and) democracy. It is when there are more than two people that a state can be valid and the majority can protect themselves from the aggression of the minority.
If there are more than two people it is natural and preferable to have a democratic government so that property rights are determined by consensus and not theft. It is a natural right to form a government if it is democratic and by extension full democracy is a natural right. (We have no right to form a state without democracy.) We do not have full democracy if we must vote tactically as with first-past-the-post and so pr is a natural right. Proportional representation is a natural right because whilst we have a right to form a democratic government we do not have a right to oppress democracy. Since we do not have a right to oppress democracy (and yet we have a right to form a government) then pr is a natural right.
None of the above is inconsistent with the non-aggression principle.
Saturday, 31 August 2013
First past the post is torture
We can define torture in this context to mean harm imposed on someone by the state for no reason. It is different from the normal execution of justice. Torture by the government is imposed arbitrarily.
First past the post is a form of torture because it fails to grant us the full expression of our political views in a democracy. There is no reason to stifle democracy and so then we should have the most democratic system possible. To reduce democracy is to reduce the freedom of the people in favour of the state and since there is no reason to do this (and a lack of freedom is punishment) we conclude that fptp is torture.
First past the post is a form of torture because it fails to grant us the full expression of our political views in a democracy. There is no reason to stifle democracy and so then we should have the most democratic system possible. To reduce democracy is to reduce the freedom of the people in favour of the state and since there is no reason to do this (and a lack of freedom is punishment) we conclude that fptp is torture.
Tyrannical statists don't like democracy
If the majority of people want peace then the elected government will reflect this and those who want aggression will be powerless against the government. If most people want war then (elected) government will be bad but then so too will anarchy be bad. Democracy is always an improvement on its absence.
Clearly proportional representation is more 'democratic' than first past the post because the voters are not motivated to vote tactically. Pr is like having direct democracy for each issue because the voters are able to be represented by someone who very closely matches their views. If we concede that pr is more democratic than first past the post then it is more like (legitimate) government than fptp which then is more like anarchy. But since democratic government is always better than anarchy (for reasons given above) then pr is always preferable to fptp. Pr is better than fptp for the same reasons that elected government (and democracy) is better than anarchy. (If democracy (the ability to refuse government) is not better than anarchy then there might be arguments for fptp over pr.) Only someone wanting to use the government for unpopular and illiberal reasons would object to more democracy. If people want a government there will be one so the best approach to prevent tyranny is to make sure that those who oppose the government are powerful which means to have the most democratic system possible. People neglected by a lack of democracy are always dissidents of the government... only (tyrannical) loyalists to the state want less democracy.
Clearly proportional representation is more 'democratic' than first past the post because the voters are not motivated to vote tactically. Pr is like having direct democracy for each issue because the voters are able to be represented by someone who very closely matches their views. If we concede that pr is more democratic than first past the post then it is more like (legitimate) government than fptp which then is more like anarchy. But since democratic government is always better than anarchy (for reasons given above) then pr is always preferable to fptp. Pr is better than fptp for the same reasons that elected government (and democracy) is better than anarchy. (If democracy (the ability to refuse government) is not better than anarchy then there might be arguments for fptp over pr.) Only someone wanting to use the government for unpopular and illiberal reasons would object to more democracy. If people want a government there will be one so the best approach to prevent tyranny is to make sure that those who oppose the government are powerful which means to have the most democratic system possible. People neglected by a lack of democracy are always dissidents of the government... only (tyrannical) loyalists to the state want less democracy.
Thursday, 29 August 2013
People want to be free
Few governments claim that their actions are intentionally malicious so then we can deduce that all of the crimes committed by governments have been done in the name of communism and socialism. The government is synonymous with socialism. The purpose of democracy is to reduce the size of the state so then democracy is antagonistic to the government and to communism. Democracy is bad for communism and socialism because it enables the people to have a veto on what is being done in their name and (purportedly) for their interests. The government will always claim to be socialist and acting for the good of the people and the 'country' so then even if it is actively engaged in the extermination of the population this will be defended by the government on the grounds of socialism. Democracy is the only protection available to the people against this kind of socialism. Since pr is more democratic than fptp we can say that pr reduces socialism much more than fptp. Pr is bad for socialism. If voters are forced to choose the least bad of just two political parties then they have been given less democracy (and less protection from socialism) than with pr.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
First past the post anarchists lack empathy
Anarchists do not want a government so it is more difficult for them to differentiate between different forms of tyranny and they will be less sensitive to pleas for a more lenient government... perhaps interpreting these as advocacy for the government. For example someone who wants democracy instead of dictatorship is clearly someone who dislikes the present government and can be thought of as a liberal. But the anarchist (unless they are sympathetic to the claims of the democrat) might be deaf to the desire for democracy over tyranny because they want neither. An empathetic anarchist might be sympathetic to the desires of the democrat and might even advocate democracy in these circumstances despite being an anarchist... since to get some freedom from the state now is better than none even if it is not full anarchy. To advocate (more) democracy is not to advocate the state and so anarchists might advocate (for example) proportional representation over first past the post. An unempathic anarchist might well be indifferent between pr and fptp merely because they cannot see things from the point of view of the democratic rebel. It is consistent for anarchists to prefer pr over fptp but it is perfectly possible for a genuine anarchist not to be able to see that pr is preferable (since they are not able to empathise with the reformers). If anarchists have no empathy it is possible that they will not be able to see how pr is better than fptp.
Friday, 23 August 2013
First past the post is authoritarian
With a proportional voting system voters are able to put much more 'information' into the system. They are better able to express what they like and don't like. They are better able to expose the government (and as a consequence everyone) to the reality of their opinions. With fptp reality is delayed because the two-party system makes it easy for the state to ignore its voters. With pr the state must be much more responsive to the people. Since reality is inherently libertarian and people want to be left alone more than they want to be protected more democracy will lead to more freedom. First past the post suppresses freedom because it enables the state to assume authority where it is not wanted. Proportional representation makes it easier for the people to reject the government. Coercion and authoritarianism are bad so if people are better able to reject these things this is good. A lack of democracy makes bad things easier (and freedom less likely).
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
First past the post is bad for the poor
We know that if banks can inflate the currency this will be bad for the poor because only those with access to banking services will be able to get the benefit of the new money. So then the poor will want to remove deposit insurance from the banking industry but to do so requires the consent of legislators who are (apparently) predisposed to subsidise the banks. The only way to remove pro-bank legislators from office is via elections but if we have a two-party system this becomes almost impossible and so we are left with a subsidised banking system which can print money. To prevent bank inflation requires full democracy. If we do not have pr then banks will continue to be able to print money which means that the poor will continue to be disenfranchised by the state-subsidised banking system. First past the post is bad for the poor because it enables the banks to retain deposit insurance.
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Voters are innocent (and should be respected)
If democracy is good then more democracy is better than some democracy. Since few argue that proportional representation is less democratic than fptp then we can deduce that arguments against reform of the system from fptp to pr are arguments against democracy. Democracy is good because the people are good. If the people are not good then there might be a case for some kind of enlightened authoritarianism but we immediately face the problem of choosing the leaders. We can think of direct democracy as a kind of anarchist democracy because the people represent themselves. If democracy is bad there should be no democracy and no government... if democracy is good then there should be as much of it as possible. We do not need to be concerned that full democracy will reduce the talent of legislators to that of the average person since people are able to deduce skill even if they do not posses that skill themselves. (And there are fewer legislators than voters.) There is no reason to keep fptp since there is no reason to oppose a more democratic government... government derives its legitimacy from the voters and so the voters should always be respected by the government. Voters should be favoured over politicians. Democracy and proportional representation is good for the people and so it is objectively good in the context of government since the government is designed to serve the people alone. The purpose of government is not to punish the people but to liberate them and so we should have pr over fptp.
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
First past the post is bad for everyone
It is a myth to assume that the first past the post system is helpful to Tory voters. Whilst their party might pick up some tactical votes using fptp they will not get as many as Labour (for reasons given shortly) and losing to Labour is never good for the interests of Tory voters even if their party gets tactical votes. What is good for Tory voters is not always good for their party. In fact we could argue that what is good for their party is not good for them (Tory voters) since to live in a two-party system is illiberal. The success of the Tory party (via fptp) hurts everyone including their voters. The voters do not need the party... only the policies of the party and so what helps the party is not always good for their voters.
The reason Labour get more tactical votes than the Tory party is that liberals are less inclined to vote for one of the large parties... and since liberals would oppose economic socialism this means that non-Labour votes are lost in a two-party system because they do not necessarily go to the Tories. It is less burdensome for the left to vote for a single party than it is for people on the right who are more distrustful of collectivism generally. People who oppose socialism will be less likely to vote tactically to make sure the opposition are kept out.
First past the post hurts Tories because it favours the left which means their policies will be enacted. Only if their supporters identified more with the party than their policies would fptp be good for the Tories... it is not good for Tories because Tories care more about policies than the particular party in power.
First past the post is bad for Tories unless they care more about their party than policies.
The reason Labour get more tactical votes than the Tory party is that liberals are less inclined to vote for one of the large parties... and since liberals would oppose economic socialism this means that non-Labour votes are lost in a two-party system because they do not necessarily go to the Tories. It is less burdensome for the left to vote for a single party than it is for people on the right who are more distrustful of collectivism generally. People who oppose socialism will be less likely to vote tactically to make sure the opposition are kept out.
First past the post hurts Tories because it favours the left which means their policies will be enacted. Only if their supporters identified more with the party than their policies would fptp be good for the Tories... it is not good for Tories because Tories care more about policies than the particular party in power.
First past the post is bad for Tories unless they care more about their party than policies.
Friday, 9 August 2013
Fptp cannot be used because no one owns elections
We know that 'he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all' but in the case of democratic systems everyone is involved. We cannot take more than our fair share without unfairly prejudicing other people. Since everyone is involved in the outcome of elections then the democratic process can be considered to be a shared property like land. In a sense we can think of the democratic system as being part of the commons and as such it is the property of everyone not just a few. Since elections belong to everyone then no one can own the democratic process but if we do not use a proportional system then this is helpful to some and unhelpful to others. Then this use of a non-proportional system would help some and not others which is an invalid use of the commons. Since the commons is owned by all then we must use a fair (and hence proportional) system. No one owns elections and democracy which means we must make sure the political process doesn't favour some and not others... to have anything other than a fair and equal voting process is a violation of the non-ownership of elections. No one owns elections which means they must be fair. To have unfair elections indicates that the electoral process is 'owned' by some people which is invalid. Ownership of elections invalid so first past the post is invalid. We do not own elections and so we cannot use first past the post.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Fptp is aggressive because it violates vote-ownership
We own our own vote and this means that no one but ourselves has the right to cast our vote for us. We have a vote each. The first past the post voting system tends to ignore this principle instead placing the power of the legislature in the hands to the two leading parties. This a result of the people trying to maximise the impact of their vote when there is only one winner. We own our own vote in the same sense that we own our own person. Other people do not have a right to control your person and they have no right to control your vote...as they do to some extent with the fptp system. With the fptp system the votes of the people are controlled to some degree by the leading parties because a vote for any of the smaller parties will be a wasted vote. To some degree we have no vote if we are only able to choose from between two parties. Physical aggression violates self-ownership and the first past the post system violates vote-ownership... that is to say that just as we own ourselves so too do we own our own vote. Fptp violates this vote-ownership and is a form of (democratic) aggression.
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
A lack of pr is uncivilised
The problem with anarchy is that there will always be someone willing to claim property which is not theirs... and since we cannot objectively deduce what is owned by whom then we can see that an anarchist society is unworkable. In fact an anarchist society is an oxymoron because if there is a society there is a state of some kind whether it is recognised or not. If there is no state then all of the property will fall into the hands of those people willing and capable to claim it. The state protects the people from criminals. So then if we must have a state we can say that the state has certain obligations unlike other public agents. In general life we do not have an obligation to each other other than to leave each other alone... we never have a debt to society. But since we require a state to have rights above those of normal people then we can also ascribe to the state extra responsibilities. And clearly one of these is that it is democratic (which is satisfied by fptp). We can further say that the state has a responsibility to be as democratic as possible (which is not satisfied by the first past the post system). It is perfectly consistent to say that the state has a responsibility and a duty to hold proportional elections just as it has a duty to hold elections. We can say that the people have a right to fair and proportional elections just as they have a right to elections. Just as a state without a democratic mandate is invalid so too is a state without a proportionally elected legislature. A lack of proportionality is an affront (to civilisation) just as a lack of democracy is an affront.
Saturday, 3 August 2013
First past the post is an anarchist system
If we are an anarchist then we take the view that nothing the government does is good. This means that it would not be a surprise for us to discover that the government uses an unfair voting system. An anarchist would expect the government to cheat at elections even abolishing them if possible. Since it has been established that the first-past-the-post system of voting isn't fair to all voters then someone who supports the government and thinks they are fair would be shocked and surprised (to find that the government use it). But an anarchist is not surprised that the government uses an unfair system of voting. In many ways we can think of the presence of fptp as being a strong physical confirmation of the malice of the state. If the state is good it would use pr so then since pr is not in use we can deduce that the state is evil. The fptp system is consistent with the state being evil.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
Proportional representation is good for liberalism
With a first-past-the-post voting system voters generally take into account how they expect other people to vote. This is called tactical voting and the reason for this is that if there is only one winner then we are wasting our vote if we vote for a minority candidate. It only makes sense to vote for a candidate we know to be popular and who has a chance of winning. This means that minority concerns are - or can be - ignored by the fptp system. A better system is one where voters are able to vote in a 'naive' sense... that is to say that they can simply choose their favourite candidate without being concerned that their vote would have more influence if they voted for a more favoured candidate. Tactical voting reduces the power of democracy which means it encourages tyranny and the expansion of the state. If there is a two-party system then always one of these parties will be of the left and because voters are generally unsympathetic to the state it is the left who will generally do better. Left-wing voters are more inclined to support the government and so they have less of a disinclination to vote for the dominant party. Voters on the 'right' do not like government and so do not like voting for the big party of government. A proportional system makes it very difficult for the left to do well because if people vote for the politician which most closely matches themselves this will lead to a splintering of the political establishment because people have disparate concerns. So then proportional representation leads to a fracturing of the political system which diminishes the power of the state. If the voting system is more proportional this is bad for the large political parties and so it is good for the voter. What is bad for the large parties is bad for the government (and socialism) and so pr will lead to more liberalism.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
First past the post advocates are not arrogant
We might think that it is arrogant for a person to advocate the use of first past the post because they are making the assumption that to choose from only two parties is adequate. But in reality their mistake is not one of arrogance but rather one of insanity. The difference is that people who advocate or defend first past the post are doing so not because they are defending its virtues but instead because they fail to see what is wrong with it... they fail to see the liberal advantages of a more proportional system.
They fail to see that there is more government and more (unwanted) socialism if voters are denied full democracy. It is not an error of arrogance to defend first past the post but ignorance or insanity.
They fail to see that there is more government and more (unwanted) socialism if voters are denied full democracy. It is not an error of arrogance to defend first past the post but ignorance or insanity.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
To use first past the post should be illegal
Socialism is not necessarily caused by democracy... in fact there are good arguments to show that if there is less democracy this will lead to more socialism. With less democracy (as with fptp) the government must to some degree guess the intentions of the voting public. Which will usually lead to more government because the state is inclined to enlarge and favour itself. With pr we know precisely what the public want and don't want. It is very likely that with a more transparent and open voting system there will be less socialism (and certainly less bad socialism) because the public will realise it is to their detriment. Governments often use the concept of socialism merely to enrich themselves and with more democracy this is not possible. Democracy prevents socialism otherwise there would be no reason to have elections to begin with. If democracy doesn't lead to the diminution of the state (by allowing the people to choose whom leads) then it would serve no purpose. Democracy enables the people to choose the leaders which means there is less consensus around established state leaders and more anarchy. No government should be allowed to form which does not use the most transparent and open form of democracy possible. It should be illegal for the state to use fptp.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Anarchists do not prefer fptp to pr
It is consistent for anarchists to prefer a proportional voting system to first past the post. The reason for this is that with pr voters have more choice and since democracy is to protect the people from the government this means less government. With fptp we can be almost certain that a two-party system will emerge... this means that fptp is helpful to those parties only and there is no reason for someone who supports neither of the two main parties to be supportive of fptp. Fptp favours the two main parties and - in a closed system - this means that it is detrimental to the rest of the public. Supporters of the two main parties benefit from fptp but no one else. Anarchists (who support neither of the main parties) must prefer pr because at least they can choose a party which is closer to their beliefs. There is no reason to think that an anarchist is served by less democracy and less choice. Democracy is bad for the state. Anarchists do not like the state and so anarchists like democracy. What is bad for the state is good for anarchists and so anarchists like democracy and prefer pr to fptp because it is more democratic. Someone who prefers fptp to pr is not an anarchist.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
We own ourselves and we own our own vote
The reason to have laws is to improve the political environment for everyone involved. Laws are rules which concern the range of permitted behaviours between people. They are designed to improve life and as such they are an objectively good thing. Since laws come only from the government then we can simply deduce that the government is an objectively good thing. Something is not supported in law if (when applied globally to everyone) it does not result in an improved society. A typical example of something which is rejected in law would be slavery (the ownership of people)... it is not possible (permissible) in law to own people because this clearly does not serve the wider public good. A second example of something which is not allowed would be (outright) landownership. Whilst this issue is perhaps more nuanced and complicated than the ownership of people we can still see how landownership might not be conducive to the public good. So both slavery and anti-Georgism are rejected in law. (So we cannot own people and we cannot own land.) A third such example of something that we cannot own would be the votes of another person. We can neither purchase or otherwise obtain the vote of another person since this is not helpful to the health of the society as a whole. This means that all (general) elections must be conducted in such a way that voters are able to vote for (or reject) whom they like without consideration to tactical concerns. If there is not proportional representation or something like it then their votes and their democratic privileges have been stolen by the governing elite. This is theft of the civic rights of the people. We cannot own the votes of another person and for that reason first-past-the-post is an invalid approach. We own ourselves and we own only our own vote which means that as a government we cannot implement fptp. It is good to have property rights and a system of laws and so it is good to have a government. First past the post is a threat to the government because it doesn't respect the right of the people to own their own vote. Since fptp is a threat to the government it is anarchistic and a bad thing. We own our own vote and so we can use only a fair and proportional voting system.
Saturday, 29 June 2013
It is a crime to use first past the post
Some people hold the view that democracy fails to justify the force of government and that government even with elections and democracy is illegitimate. Whilst that may be true few people could argue that government without democracy is not a crime. To have government without democracy is simple tyranny and there can be very few arguments made in favour of this. There is little difference in a direct and obvious crime and a 'government' if there is no democracy. Elections legitimise government and they are the only thing which does so. So then we have reached the conclusion that without democracy government is criminal. By extension we can further deduce that any effort to stifle democracy such as restricting the nature of people who are able to stand for election or restricting whom can vote is also a crime of oppression. Any effort to restrict or reduce democracy is a crime. But if first-past-the-post is used this means that eventually a two-party system will emerge which reduces choice and representation for the voter. Since we can now no longer credibly claim to be ignorant of the ill effects of a first-past-the-post system (that it leads to a two-party system) then to deliberately and knowingly use this system is a form of tyranny. It is a crime to use fptp knowing that it reduces choice and since we can no longer claim to be ignorant of the effects of fptp then to use fptp is a crime.
Thursday, 27 June 2013
To have property rights requires a fair voting system
There can be no civilisation without property rights which means there is a need for some form of government. Without government there are no property rights... but for there to be government it must be valid... and democratic. First past the post isn't entirely democratic in fact it tends to result in a system favourable to the elite whereby a small group of people are able to control politics. In order to control politics in a fptp system we need only to control both of the main parties... since no other parties are able to do well. This means that fptp is favourable to the rich and privileged and doesn't give 'the people' a share of the government. Perhaps we could argue that there are advantages to this in that to give the people full control of the government might (and has) lead to disastrous consequences... but ultimately the alternative - a government run by a small elite - is worse especially where the real risk of the type of tyranny we have seen in the past is diminishing. The people can now be trusted with proportional representation. To have the government run by a small elite (fptp) is in effect to have no government which means that property rights become arbitrary and there is discord and uncertainty amongst the people. To have genuine and valid property rights requires a legitimate government which is not provided by a two-party system. First past the post is a kind of anarchy but that is not to be welcomed since property rights (and hence civilisation) rely on there being a valid government in existence. Valid property rights rely on there being a valid government and an efficient democracy. First past the post doesn't provide valid property rights since it is not sufficiently democratic.
Tories are solipsists
"Solipsism (i/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner."
We might think that because government is a false concept in itself that it doesn't matter what type of government we live in... but clearly it is better to be owned by a loving master than a tyrant. Some farm animals live happier lives than others so we can have a view on which type of government we would prefer without being pro-state. Whilst it might be consistent for a true anarchist to have no view on the merits of first-past-the-post versus proportional representation it would be inconsistent for a political party to have no view. This would be the same as a politician being indifferent between a liberal democracy and communism. For a political party (such as the Conservative party) to be indifferent between fptp and pr or even between liberal democracy and communism is for them to make the mistake of solipsism. It is to deny that it itself is a political party because if it is then anarchy is a false notion by their own measure and it is natural to have a view on the merits of different styles of government. If the Conservative party exists then there must be a difference for it between fptp and pr since the government is real and whom gets elected matters and is of consequence. (If there is a difference between fptp and pr then pr is better since more choice leads to more people getting what they want and less of what they don't want.) So then we are left with either pr being objectively preferable or solipsism (for politicians) being true. If solipsism for politicians is true (which it can't be for them because they are a politician) there is no point in them taking a view on which voting system is preferable since there are no political parties and the government doesn't exist. Anti-pr politicians (who prefer fptp) must either deny that they and the universe is real or for some other reason prefer fptp. A 'realist' politician must prefer pr. Tories must think the universe (and themselves) doesn't exist if they are able to think fptp is preferable to pr. A politician who thinks that politics (and the type of voting system in use) doesn't matter must be in self-denial.
We might think that because government is a false concept in itself that it doesn't matter what type of government we live in... but clearly it is better to be owned by a loving master than a tyrant. Some farm animals live happier lives than others so we can have a view on which type of government we would prefer without being pro-state. Whilst it might be consistent for a true anarchist to have no view on the merits of first-past-the-post versus proportional representation it would be inconsistent for a political party to have no view. This would be the same as a politician being indifferent between a liberal democracy and communism. For a political party (such as the Conservative party) to be indifferent between fptp and pr or even between liberal democracy and communism is for them to make the mistake of solipsism. It is to deny that it itself is a political party because if it is then anarchy is a false notion by their own measure and it is natural to have a view on the merits of different styles of government. If the Conservative party exists then there must be a difference for it between fptp and pr since the government is real and whom gets elected matters and is of consequence. (If there is a difference between fptp and pr then pr is better since more choice leads to more people getting what they want and less of what they don't want.) So then we are left with either pr being objectively preferable or solipsism (for politicians) being true. If solipsism for politicians is true (which it can't be for them because they are a politician) there is no point in them taking a view on which voting system is preferable since there are no political parties and the government doesn't exist. Anti-pr politicians (who prefer fptp) must either deny that they and the universe is real or for some other reason prefer fptp. A 'realist' politician must prefer pr. Tories must think the universe (and themselves) doesn't exist if they are able to think fptp is preferable to pr. A politician who thinks that politics (and the type of voting system in use) doesn't matter must be in self-denial.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Democracy is bad for the government
The problem with any democratic political system is that an assumption of the people being aligned with the government is false. People generally regard the government as a required evil... as they should... which means that when we vote we are more concerned with being able to remove and reject bad and oppressive politicians than we are with being able to promote good politicians. This means that the positive assumption that politicians are good and we must choose the best of them is false. (As is demonstrated by the prevalence of tactical voting.) There is no one outside the politicians and the people so it is a closed system which means that ultimately it is concerned with antagonism. The best political and democratic system is one whereby the people can best express their dissatisfaction with the government. In short... people want to vote negatively (to be left alone) more than they want to vote positively (to get free stuff). So then people want to vote tactically. The nature of the first-past-the-post voting system is often criticised for being tactical but the reality is that it is insufficiently tactical. With a two-party system (as is prevalent where fptp is used) we may vote tactically for one party primarily to keep the other out but we are still voting for one of the major parties which we may not like. Our 'tactical' choice is reduced to the least bad of (only) the main two parties and not the least bad of many parties. So first past the post doesn't offer the same tactical opportunities as is offered by other voting systems. Put simply fptp makes it difficult to remove bad politicians. (Because they may be in both parties.) The reason to have democracy is in case the people do not like the politicians in which case we would want to have the system which best enables the people to remove an oppressive government. First past the post (fptp) is the system which is the least able to do this because it offers the voter the least possible choice. Fptp is the least democratic system and therefore it is the most favourable to politicians and the political class. Politicians don't like democracy but not everything that is liked by politicians is good... the reason to have elections and democracy in the first place is that the political class do not like it and it gives the people a voice. Democracy is a requirement otherwise there will be tyranny. Weak democracy (such as fptp) leads to strong government which is bad.
Friday, 21 June 2013
The voting system is not important
The method by which the members of a political body are elected doesn't matter too much. We might think that there are obvious and stark differences in how a country is governed depending on whether it uses fptp or pr. But in reality there isn't much difference. The only difference the voting system makes is in determining whom gets to state the law. What is more important is the truth of the law itself. If we agree on what the law should be then we can have little valid complaint over whom it is set by. It doesn't matter who sets the law what matters is the nature of the law itself... in which case the voting system used is not important. Only the laws are important. It doesn't matter which form of democracy is used and it doesn't matter if there is a quasi two-party system in place... provided the laws are fair. Voting doesn't alter the truth and so if the government is wrong and it is open to argument then eventually the truth will emerge. First past the post is not good but it is not objectively wrong.
Thursday, 20 June 2013
First past the post is a form of tyranny
It is necessary to have a government because otherwise we can never objectively define property rights which are required for a civilisation. Given that government is necessary and government by anything other than the democratic process is tyranny the only remaining question to ask is 'what is the appropriate voting system to use?'. The answer is a form of proportional representation in contrast to a first-past-the-post system. The reason for this is that with pr voters can get the most choice and the most freedom without the requirement to vote tactically. This is good for the same reasons that democracy is good... it prevents tyranny where the powers of the state are abused. If we are the government we have the unique ability to use force legally. This means that we have a significant obligation to make sure we have given the people the maximum possible freedom and in particular the best and most flexible voting system. To be a true and valid government we must give the people the best possible opportunity to remove us and choose the most suitable representatives for themselves. If we are in government we have an obligation to be humble to the electorate and this is only satisfied if we use a proportional (or similar) system. To use fptp is not deferential to the voter and hence is a form of tyranny in itself.
Some people don't like either of the two main parties
There is no point having democracy and letting people vote if they want to be slaves. We give people a vote because they want to be free and democracy enables the people to choose which politicians will give them the most freedom. First-past-the-post systems tend to result in a two-party system. This is so that (due to the fact that) voters make sure their vote is not wasted by voting for a politician who has no chance of winning. If we assume that people vote for the politicians which will give them the most freedom (democracy is freedom) then if a voter votes 'tactically' then their freedom is being compromised. (And tactical voting is evidence of freedom being oppressed.) It might be the case that by chance the voting public splits exactly into two categories in which case the two-party model might be suitable. However it is much more likely that the people would be best reflected and represented by a plethora of disparate parties... with plenty of choice for the voter at the ballot box. When voting behaviour is altered due to the voting system then we know that the freedoms of the people are being compromised... since we assume in a democracy that people want freedom. The people are needlessly being oppressed by the voting system if voting for their naive (instinctive) choice without the consideration of tactical voting results in less democratic influence. If they must vote tactically and are not otherwise inclined to support either of the two main parties in a fptp system then they are being oppressed by the system. Only someone who 'likes' one of the main parties is not being oppressed by the fptp system. Fptp is oppressive if (some) people do not like at least one of the main parties. If neither of the main parties is appealing to some voters then fptp will be reducing freedom overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)