The Tories cannot support fptp

The Tories are hurting themselves if they choose to support fptp. The fptp voting system helps the left because it rewards collectivism and voting for a large party. This means that fptp is detrimental to the right and political ideologies which are sympathetic to the individual. Fptp is bad for the right so it makes little sense for the Tories to support it... even if it favours their party... it is better for the country to be free than for the Tories to get a few more votes (and still lose). So when the Tories are asking the voter to give them a vote they are asking for us to support an illogical party. It is not stupid for a left-wing party such as the Labour party to support fptp because their voters do not have a problem with supporting Labour... whereas more people on the right find it hard to be loyal to the Tories. Fptp is not a problem for the left and so only the right-wing party (in a fptp-duopoly) is being stupid. In a fptp system where both of the main parties support fptp it is only the right-wing party which is being stupid... since fptp is bad for them. And they are asking voters to vote for a transparently stupid party. People do not like voting for stupid parties and so fptp is harmful to the chances of the Tory party. Fptp harms the right because it makes them look stupid. If voters don't vote for stupid parties fptp elections will never be won by the right. For the right to do well in a fptp election requires the voters to be blind to the stupidity of the right... if voters are stupid the right might do well in a fptp election... but they are not stupid... especially over time. Voters are not stupid enough to vote for the Tories if they support fptp. (Despite the threat of Labour.) If the Tories support fptp they will never be elected... they need to switch to pr to do well. The Tories can never do well if they continue to support fptp.

The left will always win fptp elections

The problem with fptp is that it rewards party loyalty and tactical voting. If people vote in a naive fashion for their genuinely preferred candidate this means that most votes will be wasted and the few bigger parties will win a disproportionate amount of seats. This is why fptp favours collectivists and the left... the right and liberals will be more inclined to vote for a smaller more niche party whereas the left is comfortable with voting for the bigger parties. It is consistent with the philosophy of the left to vote for the bigger parties so fptp helps the left and is detrimental to the right. Fptp rewards loyalty and punishes people for voting how they truly feel... which is bad for liberals and good for the left. The (Libertarian) right will never win an election using fptp. Fptp discriminates against the liberal (independent) mindset and generally returns a left-wing government. The right cannot win fptp elections. Fptp elections will always be won by the left.

Communism is a crime

We can think of most crimes as being a kind of behaviour which is inherently collectivist and left-wing in nature. Whether it is communism or individual theft... when we steal we do so in an authoritarian manner. The thief is a communist and an authoritarian. To steal is to assume a position of dominance or superiority over the victim and to believe that the best allocation of resources is if you take the money. We do not steal if we have respect for the counterpart as an equal and respect their property. (We do not steal if we are not a communist.) Only if we have given the counterpart an opportunity to refuse the theft (itself an oxymoron) can we say that we have not been aggressive and arrogant. All thefts are left-wing. All crimes are arrogant and collectivist.

And so it is that when we vote we would want to be given the most choice possible because we are selecting people who have access to our property and can steal. Our property is defined in relation to the state and so the state can be a thief if it wants to be. We can think of the state as the only legal thief... the state is the dominant and monopolistic thief in a society.

So as far as democracy is concerned there is only one thief which we are seriously concerned about and that is the government. If we do not have democracy they will be able to take everything we have with no recourse. If we have democracy we are able to prevent the theft known as taxation... and thereby prevent all legal theft. Theft is only legal if the government do it and democracy is able to prevent this legal theft. Democracy is bad for the (left-wing) thieves of the government.

If criminals including those in government are not left-wing (if communism is not a crime) then democracy (and pr) is bad because democracy prevents communism... which would be a bad thing. If communism is good and not a crime then we would want to abolish democracy. Democracy (choice) is the primary antagonist against communism. Only democracy can stop the crime of communism and so pr is good.

With pr the state are not confused

It is liberating for politicians to know that they have a democratic mandate to act or not to act. With fptp politicians must guess the true intentions of the voting public and they are not sure of what they should be doing and not doing. The government can often do too much not knowing that the public do not require the state to act. If we have proportional representation the public are able to tell the government that in many cases they want the government to do nothing. A problem is that often when there is not a clear instruction from the people politicians will err on the side of doing too much. In general the people want the government to do less which is why it is better to enable them to communicate that fact to the state. Without pr the state must guess how little or how much the public wants them to do... with pr there is no ambiguity.

Government is inevitable

If a choice offers to us a tolerable option then it will not be too offensive to us to make the choice. (There is nothing wrong with a choice if we are able to take one of the options happily...) As in the two-party fptp voting system if we are able to tolerate supporting one of the main parties then fptp will not seem too oppressive to us. If both of the options available (both Conservative and Labour) are unpalatable then fptp will immediately be a problem for us... assuming we also do not want to waste our vote.

If people who want to participate in the democratic process are offended by both Labour and the Conservative party then fptp will be a problem for them. If we assume that the democratic process is inherently liberating then to oppress the voters in this way is oppressive in general. It is oppressive to impose fptp on the voters if there is not a perfect option available (of the two parties) to the voters. If both of the parties is imperfect then more choice will only improve the government and provide more freedom. If neither party is perfect (or even tolerable) then pr will provide more freedom. If one of the parties is electable (tolerable) then fptp presents no problem (apart from it being a kind of dictatorship... which is a problem) but if both are terrible than fptp is bad and pr will provide more freedom.

Fptp is fine unless not one of the two parties is electable. If they are both not worth voting for then pr is preferable. If they are both bad then we need and can only be free with pr. We can't be free with fptp if neither one of the main parties offers freedom (and both of them are socialist). If both of the main parties are socialist (not one of them is liberal) then fptp is a problem.

Fptp-adherents must be content with (and not hate) the lack of democracy and choice provided by the system. It is strange not to want democracy... given that the alternative to accountable government is either anarchy or an oppressive dictatorship.

There is no excluded middle... we cannot have the absence of democracy and still have peace because this will lead to tyranny. If there is no accountability (in government) there is no peace. Nothing but democracy will work (and provide peace) and so it is natural and logical to prefer pr. Only anarchists (apart from tyrants) would object to pr and anarchy cannot provide peace for which we require a government and property rights. We cannot have property rights (and peace) without government and so pr is the best choice. Pr is good because anarchy is (impossible and) bad. Only anarchists (who are not tyrants) have a preference for fptp over pr but anarchy will never provide peace and so pr is the natural choice if we do not want a dictatorship. Pr puts the power in the hands of the (liberal) people and not the socialist government.

Compared to the government without democracy the people (the voters) can be considered to be liberals. Democracy is a liberal (not socialist) concept. Only socialists hate democracy. Neither of the two main fptp parties offer statelessness... no political party can be an anarchist party... the government is not the absence of government.

The government is real.

Only socialists like fptp

To think that the voting public like fptp is absurd. There is no way the people like not being given a voice... that would be illogical. So fptp is good only for the element of the state which is not the people. Under pr the state matches up completely with the people but with fptp there is an element which is aligned with the people and another part which is undemocratic like communism. First past the post is good only for this small element of people who are part of the state and the part which is unpopular. Fptp is good only for the undemocratic part of the state... not the state as a whole since a significant part of the state has a (democratic) mandate. Fptp is good only for the unwelcome part of the state. It is not good for the democratic and accountable part of the state. People who like fptp cannot claim to be anything other than part of the undemocratic state. And only if democracy is socialism could it be said that those people are liberal. There is nothing wrong with democracy and so those people who support fptp are socialists. Only socialists are opposed to democracy.

Proportional representation would be a revolution

Because government under fptp is so terrible people assume all government is bad but that is not the case... in fact government is a requirement for civilisation and property rights. Without a government there can be objective property rights and so no property rights at all. There are no property rights without government so we must choose the best type of government. The problem is fptp not the government itself. If we have proportional representation people are treated fairly (as voters) and they are able to get what they want out of the democratic process. If we have fptp they will always feel resentful towards the government because they have been given no control. To switch from fptp to pr would be a kind of revolution because it would (inevitably) replace unpopular party politicians with what people want. It would be a popular revolution.

Democracy is the truth

The Tory position on fptp would appear to be that they are the default (natural) party of government and that any threat to them including from pr is a threat to that status and by extension a threat to Capitalism itself. They see themselves as the only party which is capable of providing Capitalism and so the only reason to oppose them (and to oppose fptp) would be antagonism to Capitalism. They think only they are Capitalists and so all threats to their power are made by collectivists. But of course it is immediately apparent how absurd this is. It is not difficult to see that the Tories (in contrast to their understanding of themselves) do not understand Capitalism at all. Capitalism is the philosophy that people make the best decisions for themselves and so to prefer a voting system which is antagonistic to choice (fptp) means the party has no instinct for Capitalism. The Tories hate and fear Capitalism which is why they prefer fptp. If they wanted free markets and less government they would let the people get what they want which is freedom... it is because the Tories fear the absence of socialism that they insist on keeping fptp. Not being Labour supporters is not enough evidence to establish an opposition to socialism. Fptp offers voters a choice between two socialist parties. For people who do not want socialism it is a problem. There is no way to meaningfully participate in a fptp election (if you want to be free) and not waste your vote. All votes are wasted if we consider a tactical vote to be a wasted vote. Fptp doesn't provide government whereby we can be free but instead the least bad of two communist systems. It is not choice which creates socialism it is a lack of choice. The voting public is noble and the best system is that which gives the electorate the most clear voice... which enables the people to be heard... which they cannot be if their choices are diminished. Fptp is a method by which the truth of the electorate is silenced and marginalised.

Incomplete summary of rhetorical positions (update)

This is an update of a prior post in which I laid out the current status of my rhetorical positions. This type of blog helps me to understand what if anything remains to be done to have a consistent political outlook.

Nihilistic positions

i) Land ownership This is pretty clear and has been my position for some time. To make a claim of land ownership is purely subjective and can always be questioned. This means that to 'own' land we must always be cognisant of the claims of other people around us. We live with other people and if our land claims are sufficiently extensive that they hurt others then we have a problem which can be remedied. Land claims need to be made in reference to the claims and needs of the rest of the population.

ii) Taxation Generally I am a sceptic with regard to the benefits of public spending. It is extremely difficult to do something useful without price signals. Of course charity is perfectly possible and beneficial but government spending is not charity.

iii) Drug prohibition This is a violation of natural rights because to be locked up we must have committed a crime but we cannot do a crime to ourselves by definition. Crimes are behaviours and actions which hurt other people. The important point here being other people not ourselves. We cannot do a crime to ourselves and so drug prohibition is illegal and unnecessary.

Non-nihilistic positions

i) Proportional representation We need to have a government otherwise we can have no property rights and the only valid way to have a government is by democracy. What this means is that for civilisation to exist we must have democracy so the only remaining question is which type of democracy is best. With first past the post voters are almost always reduced to making a choice between only two parties... the others are not worth voting for because they cannot win. This reduces the choice available to voters in (deciding) which politicians they want to retain which means they are forced to give their approval to someone they don't entirely like. If there is enough choice we can say that voters will more-or-less get entirely what they want. (Despite the fact other people might want something else.) With democracy we are able to protect ourselves from the predations of others (to oppose crime) and also the predations of the state (socialism). If we do not have enough democracy as with fptp this means that these two predators (conventional criminals and state socialists) are able to exploit this lack of democracy to their advantage. If we have full democracy this is bad for criminals (both state and private) because democracy is the mechanism by which property rights are set by the community. If property rights cannot be accurately determined (with full democracy) then predators will exploit the ambiguities which are not dealt with. Pr is a more accurate form of democracy and since democracy is the source of civilisation pr is more civilised. Anyone who opposes pr and democracy is a threat to property rights and hence a criminal of a kind.

First past the post makes freedom impossible

The problem with the fptp voting system is that it gives the progressive voter very little choice. They cannot vote for the Tories because by their nature they are not a progressive party... as no centre-right party in a fptp duopoly will be. The choice for the progressive is to either vote for the Labour party to 'punish' the Tories for their position on fptp or to not vote. The problem for the progressive with not voting is that this lets in Labour who are not progressive and are often socialist which can lead to serious problems. This means that to be logical and progressive the progressive voter can do nothing but sit and watch as Labour win repeated elections. We cannot be free if we have a fptp voting system because the logical choice is to do nothing and watch Labour win... which is not freedom. Fptp makes freedom impossible because progressives are not able to (be logical and) stop the Labour party. Fptp makes it impossible to stop the Labour party which means (unless the Labour party offer freedom) fptp guarantees a lack of freedom.

Fptp forces progressives to vote for socialism

The Labour party receive a great deal of tactical votes because of the first-past-the-post voting system. This means that the country endures more socialism that it would otherwise if it had a proportional system. The reason people vote for the Labour party (over the Tories) in a fptp system is that the Tories are by definition a conservative party. (All centre-right parties in a fptp system will be conservative parties.) This means that if people want to be progressive then they have only one choice available to them... which is not to have a choice. They can either vote for the Labour party or waste their vote. People are progressive especially when they are involved in elections which means the Tories can never win in a fptp system and fptp elections will always be won by the Labour party (or the Democrats in America). It is because of the fptp voting system (where it exists) that socialist parties get elected. Without fptp there would be no socialism. Even if people are not left-wing when they are faced with the tactical considerations of the fptp voting process they have little choice but to vote for the left-wing party (of the two) if they are progressive. And most people are progressive when it comes to politics. First past the post always results in (apparently) left-wing outcomes because people are not conservative when it comes to politics. People are progressive which means fptp is a bad system which results in socialism. The fptp voting system forces progressives to vote for the Labour party when otherwise they would not do so. Progressives vote for socialism only when there is no other choice.

People are not loyal to the Tories

Part of the problem with the Tory (anti-socialist) position where fptp is advocated is that voters are not generally sufficiently loyal to stop Labour. The fptp system requires that voters even Labour supporters need to be loyal to their chosen party. They cannot drift away and vote for their naive non-tactical choice they must work out which party has a chance to win and vote accordingly. This means that for socialism to be prevented voters need to be loyal to the Tory party. But the problem with this is that people do not like voting for a party such as the Tory party in order to prevent a victory for Labour. People do not like being loyal to the Tories which means fptp is very helpful to Labour. Labour would do much worse under pr which means that Tory support for fptp is part of the reason Labour thrive. The Tories are keeping Labour in power as a consequence of their support for fptp. People are not loyal and so the fptp voting system is flawed.

Pr is a requirement for civilisation

Only pr is logical as far as voting systems are concerned which means that if a government forms as a result of a fptp election it is invalid. And the people know this which is why fptp governments are generally despised. But if a government is deeply unpopular (as they are when formed using fptp) then we might even think of this kind of government as not being a government at all... and instead being a kind of anarchy. We can think of fptp as anarchy because it is so (illogical and) unpopular. To have civilisation requires property rights but without democracy and a government of some kind we cannot have valid property rights. Property rights need to be objective to be meaningful which means they require a government. There are no property rights in an anarchist system so we need democracy and government. Without government there are no property rights so if we are to be civilised we need democracy and if we are to be logical we need pr. Only with pr can we be (logical and) civilised. There is no civilisation without pr.

Only proportional representation is logical

A performative contradiction is a contradiction of the type whereby the agent is acting in such as way or is subject to an environment which directly contradicts their proposition. For example to deny that you are a human is a performative contradiction. To claim not to be speaking is a performative contradiction. The reason why the fptp political class is engaging in a performative contradiction is that they base much (all) of their rhetoric on the validity of the fptp voting system. It is supposed that fptp has given voters sufficient choice to remove the politicians from office when it has not. Fptp is good only if it is anarchy and clearly if we are even discussing politics then fptp is not anarchy. If there is fptp there is not anarchy by definition and so pr is better but the political class must be a supporter of fptp if they are prepared to be associated with politics. They must be blind to the problems and contradictions of fptp. Fptp doesn't work because it enables the formation of a state by definition (that it the purpose of fptp) and so only pr is reliable and logically possible.

Pr is good unless democracy is good for the state

We can say by definition that a voting system is to be welcomed if it makes it easy to remove socialists. If someone who seeks to be a politician wants to take control of private spending then the purpose of democracy is to enable the people to remove that person. The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to remove socialists but with fptp it is not easy to do so because the system degenerates into only two parties which means that people get less choice... and if there is less choice there will be more socialism. The problem with fptp is that it makes it difficult for voters to remove socialism. A voting system is bad if it is hard for the people to remove socialism as it is with fptp and so fptp is bad and by contrast pr is good. If pr is bad then it is bad (for the people) to be able to remove socialists.

The Labour party are right wing (and not liberal)

We know that the Labour party are not truly a progressive left-wing party because they do not support a change in the voting system to pr. If Labour supported pr then we could say that they are a left-wing party but their adherence to fptp shows that they are not interested in liberating the country. Labour support for fptp shows that they are oppressive and not liberal. If the Labour party were liberal and not right-wing (as they are) they would support pr. It is because the Labour party are right-wing (and not liberal) that they support fptp.

The Tories are not good or bad

The only reason to keep fptp is if the fortunes of the Conservative party are more important than those of the country. It is impossible to deny that governments are formed using fptp... we cannot say that fptp is anarchy so then we must ask is it better than pr? If fptp is not anarchy then we are justified in comparing it with other voting systems. The only advantage of fptp (for a non-socialist) would be that it is helpful to the Conservative party but this is to fail to be aware of losses elsewhere. It not good to help the Tory party if this means that other non-socialist parties fail and Labour win overall. It is not good to sacrifice the country to protect the Conservative party. Only if the Tories are more important than the country and put themselves above the country would it be a good idea to retain fptp. Fptp is bad unless the Tories are more important than the country. Nationalists have no reason to support fptp unless they prefer the Tories to their own country. Pr is good for the country even though it is bad for the Tories. This is an apparent psephological paradox because traditionally the Tories are associated with freedom and resisting communism. Pr is something which is good for the country and yet bad for the Tories. Not everything which is bad for the Tories is good for the country.

Left and right are the wrong way around

In political dialogue (especially in countries with fptp) it is generally considered that the right-wing party are the party of Capitalism and small government... and that the left-wing party like socialism and interventionism. And whilst the individual fptp parties might adhere to this stereotype we can say that the terms 'left' and 'right' are the wrong way around. The reason for this is that right has connotations of strength (perhaps because most people are right-handed) whereas 'left' has connotations of failure. But with fptp it is the right wing (that is to say socialist) party that will do well. For the liberal (Capitalist) party to do well in a fptp system requires that people are disciplined and vote for the single right-wing (not socialist) party. But this is like communism since a one-party state is communism. The Labour party (in the UK) is actually an anti-communist party and the Tories are the communist party of the establishment... due to their requirement in a fptp system to be disciplined and loyal to a single party. The Tories require loyalty to a single party which is communist and the Labour party are the antidote to that. The Labour party are the progressives which in turn makes them the party of orthodoxy because people and nature is progressive. The Labour party are the default party of government in a fptp system which makes them the right-wing party and so we deduce that the labels generally applied to Labour and the Conservative are misapplied.

Fptp is a problem because the Tories are toxic

Nice people find it impossible to vote for the Conservative party for many reasons not only to do with the fptp voting system. But what this means is that they are prevented from stopping Labour. With fptp nice voters cannot vote Tory so they must let Labour win. With pr such voters would be in a position to vote for a viable liberal candidate and so stop Labour socialism. Fptp prevents nice people from stopping socialism it reduces the pool of people who are able to stop socialism to only nasty (non-nice) people. Only nasty people can stop socialism with fptp but with pr many more could do so. Freedom isn't nasty so it doesn't make sense to exclude nice people from the democratic process. It would only make sense to restrict power to Tory and Labour voters if being nice (unable to vote Tory) is the same as being socialist. If the Tories are nasty there are votes to be gained by the non-socialists (including the Tories) in switching to pr. Fptp is a problem because the Tories are toxic and this means (nice) liberals cannot vote for them and are not able to prevent a Labour victory.

Proportional representation is the opposite of tyranny

It is good if small parties are able to get into government because this means that people are not obligated to vote for large parties. Only being able to vote for large parties is a problem because we are endorsing things we might not otherwise. Pr enables people to vote for small parties and not jeopardise their vote... which is good because this means people can get what they want out of democracy and government. If democracy is good then pr is good because it makes democracy more effective by enabling people to vote for smaller parties. If it is not good to have democracy and better to have unaccountable government (defined by tyranny) then pr is not good. Pr is good if tyranny is not good.

The Tories are prejudiced against democracy

Something is good if it is bad for the Conservative party. Any party which seeks to gain or maintain power using a non-proportional voting system is not acting in the interests of the people by definition. And so the Tories (if they retain their position on fptp) are acting against the interests of the people... which is bad. The Tories are (objectively) bad if they maintain their anti-pr position. Something which is bad for a party which objects to proportional representation (for no reason) can only be good... not bad. Something cannot be bad if it is bad for a party which rejects democracy and a fair voting system (for no reason). Something cannot be bad if it rejected by a party which has no reason to do so. (It can only be good.) If the Tories could come up with a plausible reason (justification) for their rejection of pr then pr might be bad but if there is no argument against it then it is objectively good. (And to reject it is bad.) Things for which there is no objection are good... and if they are rejected by a party that cannot find a good reason to do so then this is further evidence that they are good. If something is rejected by bad people (in government) then this is further evidence of its virtue. If the Tories hate pr (for no reason) then it is good. It is bad to dislike something for no reason and so pr (which is disliked (for no reason) by bad people) is good... since that which is bad for bad people is good. That which is bad for bad people is good and the Tories are bad for blindly rejecting (being prejudiced against) pr... so pr is good. Pr is good because the Tories hate it. If the Tories (who are prejudiced against pr... and so bad) hate something then it is good. The Tories hate pr so it is (objectively) good. The Tories hate good things.

The Tories will soon support pr

It is very likely that the Conservative party will soon support pr... despite their historical antipathy towards reform. The problem with the fptp voting system is that it makes it difficult for the established centre-right party to do well. Even though they get more votes than they otherwise would (with pr) fptp is still bad for the Tories because it is bad for the right. Tory voters we presume are more concerned with policy than with the colour of the winning party (red or blue) and so we can deduce that they will want to change the voting system. Given that fptp is so helpful to Labour it is likely that the Tory party will eventually (even soon) support a reform of the voting system from fptp to pr. It makes sense for the right to support pr and even if this is detrimental to the party in terms of absolute votes it is possible (even likely) that the Tories will soon campaign for a reform of the system. There is no reason for the Tories not to support pr and it is likely they will cease to be so fervent in their support for fptp and switch their support to pr.

Fptp is hard to remove because of religion

One of the problems with religion is that it makes the fptp voting system hard to get rid of. The reason for this is that religious people are able to look at terrible things (such as the fptp voting system) and reconcile them with their world view. They have no incentive to change terrible things because those things do not necessarily 'stand out' to the religious person. Suffering is not a contradiction to a religious person they can be aware of something terrible and feel no strong compulsion to do anything about it because it is just part of God's plan and there is nothing to be done about it. An atheist will be aware of something wrong with the world and want to change it which is why atheists are more likely to object to the first-past-the-post voting system. If there is something wrong in the world an atheist will ask if anything can be done to improve it... unlike a religious person.

Voting for the Tories doesn't work

It doesn't make sense for people on the right to be in favour of the fptp voting system because using it is helpful to the left. The left thrive using a system whereby the alternative to the centre-left party is perceived as a party which is entirely comfortable with business and capitalism. If there is proportional representation there is more nuance in the right-wing choices but with fptp we are apparently only able to vote for a single monolithic party which might lead to a complete abandonment of the people (to the market) by the state. It is not good for the right to force voters into voting for their single fptp party using the fptp system because they likely will not do so. Given the choice between some government and no government people generally want some government... and so fptp is a problem for the right. It would be better for the right to reject fptp and instead promote proportional representation but the centre-right party is often strongly welded to the principle of first past the post. In this case (where the centre-right party will not abandon fptp) it is best for voters on the right to reject the established centre-right party and support a minority party that will change the voting system. It is best for right-wing voters to switch from the Tories (who will never drop their preference for fptp) to the Liberal Democrats. The right can never win if they keep trying to use fptp. Only with pr can the right protect themselves from government socialism.

(The Tory position on) fptp is a bit like terrorism

The method by which the Tories gain tactical support is to explain that the Labour party are much worse (and less liberal) than the Tories and so voters should be fearful of this outcome and vote for them. This is very much like terrorism in that the voter is being coerced into doing something they would otherwise not do out of a fear of physical force. The Tories are using the threat of a Labour victory to coerce voters into supporting them... which is very much like terrorism. The Tories are relying on voters being sufficiently fearful of a Labour victory that they will vote for the Tories out of fear. If the voters are not scared and not cowards (who vote tactically for the Tories) then this tactic will not work for the Tories. The Tories rely on voters not being brave enough to tolerate a Labour victory (assuming they are disposed not to support Labour). The Tories rely on non-Labour voters being sufficiently fearful of a Labour victory that they are prepared to vote tactically for the Tories when they would not otherwise do so. The tactical votes received by the Tories are gained through fear of a Labour victory.

Labour support fptp because they fear the Tories

We can see why the Conservative party would have a preference for fptp as it is the only means by which their policies are relevant. The Tories cannot get elected without fptp so they will never agree to its replacement. It is the opposition Labour party who are in a position to change the voting system because it is not so detrimental to their beliefs to have pr. The Labour party are generally perceived as the more progressive of the two main parties. (They do not describe themselves as conservatives.) So to change the voting system is not antithetical to their philosophy. It would be consistent with the progressive ideology for the Labour party to change the voting system but they will not do so. It is hard to find an explanation for why the Labour party are reluctant to change the voting system but perhaps it is because they are (irrationally) scared of the Tories.

The Tories are a communist party

If there is not enough democracy (choice) the political system will degenerate into communism. With proportional representation people are able to vote for whomever they like which means they are able to protect themselves. If there is not pr and instead fptp this means that people will generally vote for the least bad of the two main parties. This means that the electorate will not be able to protect itself from coercive government and communism. The people will be exposed to communism if they do not have proportional representation. Advocates of fptp are advocates of communism. First past the post is a communist system and all parties which advocate it (including Labour and the Conservative party) are communists. Even the Tories (as well as Labour) are communists as a result of their advocacy for fptp. Fptp is a communist system and all parties which advocate it are communist.

Democracy is not government

Democracy is intended to provide a means for the the government to gain accountability from the people. To have democracy assumes that government without accountability (by the ballot box) is undesirable. If undemocratic government is tyranny then the intention behind democracy is to guard against tyranny. But with fptp we see that as a consequence of Duverger's law the choice rapidly diminishes to only two parties. This is a problem if we want the government to be accountable. If democracy is a good idea then fptp is a bad idea and adherents of fptp can only be people who oppose democracy entirely. People who like fptp dislike the concept of government accountability preferring that there are no elections and there is only tyranny. Without democracy we cannot imagine that the government will go away. To advocate pr is not to advocate government in the first place it is merely to advocate that the present government use pr. To decry the use of pr doesn't make the government any more vulnerable... to protect fptp does not harm the government for its unpopularity at a lack of accountability. The government stays whether the system is reformed from fptp to pr or not. The alternative to pr is not anarchy it is to have government constrained (only) by fptp. To reject pr is to protect the government because the absence of pr is not a threat to the government. The government has done very well with fptp over the years and so to protect the fptp system is to protect the government. If the government is exposed to democracy there will be less of it. Government is the opposite of democracy.

Democracy is anarchy

We have no right to govern if we do not have the consent of the people... but in a sense to have the consent of the people is then not to govern at all. If the people have given their consent then the government is acting in their own interests and is not an obstacle to them and so we can say that there isn't really a government. Governments exist only when there is no consent. Government is slavery and if there is consent then we are not a slave so there is no government. To have the consent of the governed is an oxymoron because the governed have not given their consent by definition. If there is a democracy then the people have given their consent and so we can describe a democracy as anarchy. Democracy is anarchy but if there is fptp and not proportional representation then we do not have democracy or anarchy. Fptp is government because it is not democracy. Pr is democracy and so with pr there is no government and there is anarchy. Pr is anarchy because the people have given their consent to the state. If the state is not an obstacle to the people (when it is elected) then we can think of this as being (to have) no government at all. There is no government if there is a democracy.

There is no government with pr

The truth is not necessarily popular... that is to say the number of people who hold a belief is not always a good indication of whether it is true. In fact many truths are sometimes uncomfortable (such as the certainty of death) and are as a consequence rejected by many people. We do not know something is true merely because many people believe it. People can sometimes believe in some stupid things. Which is why the concept of democracy is not perfect. It is possible for more than half of the population to be bigoted and hold false views... which means that great harm can be done. Popularity doesn't make something true so democracy is not necessarily the best means by which we should be governed. Democracy is flawed because the truth is not always popular. Democracy is not a guarantee of truth or (is it) certain to be the best system... although it does confer a degree of consent from the people. If there is a government it requires consent which is what democracy provides. We are not obligated to vote 'tactically' which means even in a fptp system the government has received a mandate to rule. In a democracy the government is an expression of the desires of the people... and if there is not pr this is tempered by the inability of the people to get precisely what they want. With pr people can get exactly what they want... with fptp they can get some of what they want... the rest being provided by the establishment. Pr might not be good because it gives the people (lets the people have) more of what they want... although within the logic of democracy (and consent) itself then pr is sensible. The government would have even more consent from the people if there is pr. With fptp there is a degree of unpopular government. With pr all of the government has a mandate from the people (if that is valid or not) whereas with fptp only some of the state has a mandate from the people. Pr gives more (the entirety) of the government a mandate. If government with consent is not government then pr is anarchy and only fptp (of the two principal democratic systems) provides any government at all.

First past the post is difficult to get rid of

The difference between first past the post and proportional representation is that with pr the people genuinely rule the country. If they want tyranny they will be able to get it as we have seen in history and if they want peace and freedom that is also available... as we have seen. The significant difference with fptp is that it provides a barrier for the establishment to protect itself from the aspirations of the country as a whole. Whether this is a good thing depends on what the people want and what the establishment want. If the government is more liberal than the people then fptp is to be welcomed because liberalism is the route to wealth and peace. If the people are more liberal than the government then pr is preferable. Part of the problem with fptp is that the ruling establishment can find it difficult to relate to the (economic) problems of the people because they are insulated from them. First past the post is not intrinsically bad... whether it is good or bad depends on whether democracy is good. The advantage of fptp over pr is that with fptp it requires a radical to convince only the establishment of their great idea whereas with pr they would be required to convince the entire country which would be more difficult. Fptp is inherently susceptible to radicals for this reason. But is also means that if the people have 'woken up' to a problem facing the country that the politicians are unaware of then it is very unlikely that they will be able to get what they want... to the detriment of the country. If democracy is a suspect ideology then fptp is to be preferred.

People care more about their party than pr

There is no argument to make in favour of proportional representation. The reason for this is that the fptp voting system protects the left so it is only they who have something to lose from pr but winning arguments are generally anti-left arguments. (So the argument cannot be won... to be left-wing is not a contradiction to adherents of fptp.) Anti-left arguments are generally the winning argument because leftism (often) assumes collectivism and that certain people have something in common with others and should be preferred. Leftism is a kind of bigotry in favour of the group or the country and so it is easy to win arguments against the left by exposing this fact. But with pr we can show that it favours the left but we are dealing with people who are already predisposed to favour the left and so we have not won the argument. It is when people cease to be collectivist that they will share your preference for pr. If someone is left-wing that preference will be stronger than their views on fptp versus pr and so it is a waste of time to talk about pr versus fptp when you could be addressing the bigger issue. If someone doesn't like pr the first step is to find out if they are a collectivist. If people are idiots they will not like pr (perceiving it as a threat to their party). Pr is the means by which we destroy the political parties but if someone is loyal to a party they will not be in favour of pr. And in this case it is better and more productive to discuss their loyalty rather than to discuss the voting system. People's party loyalties are stronger than their loyalty to a particular voting system.

First past the post is good for the left

It is a matter of observation that first-past-the-post tends to be favourable to the political left. Parties like the Labour party in the UK and the Democrats in America tend to do well under this system. The dynamics of this are easy to understand... the left has less difficulty being loyal and voting for a large party. The right is more individualistic and so they will more easily find objections to voting for their respective parties. The right finds it more difficult to endorse policies which they disagree with not because they are more principled but because their intrinsic philosophy is disinclined to let things go and allow the individual to be oppressed. The left might object to certain policies of their party but they will still support that party since they see the interests of the group being as important as those of the individual. It is for these reasons and perhaps others that even if the party of the left is incompetent and corrupt they still get support in a fptp system. The left do well under fptp. This is a matter of observation. Knowing this it would make sense to support a change to the voting system so that voters are able to vote for whomever they like without their vote being wasted. This means that it would be good to introduce pr. Pr would make it more difficult for the collectivist left to do well which by itself is a good thing.

There is no reason for anarchists to prefer fptp

If government is not good then there is no point having elections and elections should be illegal. But without government it becomes difficult to see how we can get (objective) property rights... without government there is no absolute authority which means there is no authority and we rely on people not doing bad things. Whilst this may work it is also possible to make a case for democracy. With democracy we can absolutely define property rights to be those chosen by the government. Without government property rights are arbitrary and so absent. With government we can have property rights and a true definition of crime. Government enables the justified prosecution of crimes. Assuming we want government then it makes sense to use pr because otherwise people will not be able to vote for whom they like. If it is good to have government then further it is better to have pr than fptp because it enables people to have even more control over their government. If government is not good then it is still not easy to find a justification for fptp. Fptp is not anarchy. If government is not good then we (again) would want to have pr so that the people are able to control the malign government. Whether government is good or it is not good it is better to have pr than fptp. Fptp is never preferable to pr.

First past the post governments are weak

Our vote counts more if we can vote for whom we like and expect to receive full representation. If we must equivocate and compromise on our political beliefs to make sure that our vote counts and is not ignored (because we have voted for a minority candidate) then our vote counts less and democracy has failed. Democracy to work requires that all votes count equally. If some votes do not count to the same extent as others then the institution of government itself is weakened because the winning party has failed to receive a genuine mandate. A coalition which results from a pr election has received a genuine mandate from the people. With fptp elections what generally happens is that the winning party has very much fewer than half of the votes so they are always a minority government. With pr the government is always a majority government because a coalition of smaller parties is formed. This means that pr governments have more legitimacy and can govern with more authority. First past the post governments are intrinsically weak for this reason.

Elections matter because people want to be free

If the government is popular and liked by the people then it won't make much difference which form of voting system is chosen... they will always vote for the party which promises to do the most and we will end up with communism. Politics and democracy rests on the observable truth that people do not much like the government. If people do not hate the government then elections would be completely uninteresting and to get elected a party would need only to promise to tax everything. This is clearly not the nature of elections and so we can deduce that people do not like governments. And if they do not like governments and small government is good then it would be sensible to have a preference for pr. Only if either small government is bad or if elections do not indicate the antipathy of the people for the government would it be a good idea to retain fptp. Pr is a good idea because small government is better than large government and because the people can be relied upon to remove governments when they are given the opportunity. When we are witness to ballot rigging and other electoral crimes it is generally the incumbent state that is responsible for the fraud. This is because they know the people will vote to remove them. If democracy is not a threat to the state it has no meaning. If democracy means anything and the outcome of elections are pertinent to our lives then it can only be because the people do not like the government and so pr is better. If elections are meaningful then pr is preferable to fptp.

First past the post fails to do what is required of it

The purpose of an electoral system is to ensure that people are able to select and reject aspirant politicians. It is in the interests of the country that the people have the widest possible choice and that their views are evenly represented. There is nothing to be gained from giving preferential representation to particular groups. In particular it is important that groups which are already powerful such as the rich are not given excessive influence because they already have influence in society. The smallest minority is the individual and so we want to make sure the individual is able to be heard. The type of system which satisfies these requirements is proportional representation because it enables people to be represented no matter whom they vote for. If people can't get the representation they want with a particular voting system then it has failed in its objectives. Fptp fails because it tends to ignore voters who do not vote for the two main parties. For a voting system to work requires that the degree of our influence is not altered by whom we vote for. We should be able to vote for any candidate and expect that the impact of our vote will not be diminished if the person we are voting for is not popular. First past the post doesn't work as a voting system because it fails this test. With fptp the impact of our vote is altered by whom we are voting for and for this reason it fails as a voting system.

Labour are not a threat to the Tories

It is a mistake to assume the centre-right party in a fptp duopoly is necessarily in favour of a reduced state. Whilst such a party might have originated with a Libertarian and anti-socialist mindset it is very often that such parties degenerate into coercive statism. The party of the centre-right (the Tories) are not often in favour of freedom and liberty and are often very similar in outlook to their opponent. It follows from this that such a party has much more to fear from a change in the voting system than they do from their purported opposition. If there is a third party such as the Liberal Democrats (which supports proportional representation) we can say with certainty that the Tories will have much more to fear from their success than they do from the success of the natural opposition. The Tories have much more to fear from the success of the Liberal Democrats than they do from Labour who (whilst they might keep the Tories from power) will nevertheless retain the voting system which keeps the Tories in place. The Tories have far more to fear from the introduction of pr than they do from Labour and so they will prefer to see Labour do well than the Lib Dems. The Tories have much more to fear from the Lib Dems than they do Labour.

First past the post should be illegal

There is no reason not to make first-past-the-post voting illegal. The problem with fptp is that (as a consequence of Duverger's law) it tends to result in the emergence of a two-party system which is an obstacle to the democratic rights of the people. If the people are given their full democratic rights they will be able to vote for whomever they like and have their vote counted equally. This is only possible if the system being used is proportional. If we do not use pr then people must consider which candidates other people will vote for and adjust their vote accordingly. This 'tactical' voting means that people are not getting what they want when they vote which means the society within which they live is not to their liking. If people have full democracy we can assume that the world they live in will be the closest to that which they want. Fptp is needlessly harmful to the people who use it. There is no reason to have fptp so it should be illegal.

The fptp parties are composed of nasty people

Politicians of the two main establishment parties in a fptp system are in receipt of tactical votes. This means that people are voting for them when with a different system they would be voting for someone else. The politicians are getting power and (democratic) influence because the voters do not have a free choice. The politicians gain from the lack of freedom of the voter. A moral or 'nice' person would never be willing to allow themselves to be in this position so we can deduce that politicians who join the fptp parties are immoral. No nice people join the fptp parties because they gain from the lack of freedom of the voter. All politicians of the two main fptp parties have no morals and are not nice people.

Emigration is the best reaction to first past the post

The nature of the fptp voting system is that only those in charge of the system (the government) can change it... but they would have little incentive to do so. People who get into government under the fptp system are not motivated by a desire to do good and liberate the people. If they were the fptp system itself would be too offensive for them to participate. People we attain political success under fptp are not interested in freedom and are not offended by the inherently communist nature of the fptp voting system. If the people doing well under fptp were good people it would not be a problem. Fptp is a problem because it excludes people with morality and so it will remain. The fptp system itself excludes moral people meaning that it will be persistent and remain. Fptp will never be replaced because the people doing well under that system are not motivated to change it... so the best remedy when faced with a fptp government is to emigrate.

Pr is preferable because it results in coalitions

Despite the failures of communism it is still possible to find adherents which means that voters are not always the best judge of their own interests. But it is difficult to envisage a society without democracy and elections. So we must choose the system of democracy in which the voters can do the least damage to themselves. And we can see that it is proportional representation which protects the voter from him and herself. If pr is in use the voters will likely vote for the political party which most closely matches their views... there is no reason for them to vote otherwise. This means that we will (eventually) get many different parties in parliament. Because there will be many different parties a government will be able to form only if they arrange a coalition. Coalitions are not the same as one-party rule which is the general outcome with fptp. If there is fptp we tend to get landslides for either of the two establishment parties but with pr it is very unlikely that a single party will emerge alone and so there are coalitions which are inherently liberating. With coalitions comes freedom and liberty which is why pr is preferable. If we have fptp then it very unlikely that we will get (the requirement for) coalitions and so we will get socialism or worse. It is because pr elections tend to result in no overall winner and the requirement for coalitions that they are preferable. Pr is preferable because it doesn't tend to result in a win for a single party which is bad for the country. Pr is good because it is difficult for single parties to do well.

First past the post is a communist system

There is a strong similarity between the first-past-the-post voting system and communism. If we assume that the established centre-left party (Labour) is not libertarian then only the centre-right party offers an option for people who like economic freedom. If the Tories are the only option for people who do not like state control then this is like one-party rule for libertarians. And one-party rule is the same as communism. If there is no democracy (as there is not with fptp) then we are living in a communist system even if the party concerned claims to be liberal. If we have no choice but to vote for the Tories then we have no choice and it is communism.

Politicians do not like democracy

First past the post is favourable to the political class which is not good. Generally we can assume that the electorate is 'better' at making decisions than the government. Democracy enables the people to veto any decisions made by the government. It enables them to remove politicians who do not act in their best interests. If fptp is being used the people will not have a full choice and (for their vote to count) they will be reduced to choosing the least bad of the two main parties. This stifles democracy and in consequence stifles freedom. What is bad for democracy is bad for freedom. First past the post reduces the ease by which we can reject bad politicians and so it is a bad thing. The political class has a preference for fptp because it makes it easier for them to get into power. As opposed to being fully exposed to the electorate (as with pr) with fptp aspirant politicians only need to satisfy the demands of the mainstream parties. With pr the politicians must both gain the approval of their parties and then the approval of the people. Proportional representation makes it more difficult for politicians to get into power... and so is a good thing. That which is bad for the political class is a good thing and liberating because (whichever system is chosen) there will be a political class so for freedom we want to make the process rigorous. Pr is much more rigorous in removing bad politicians than fptp which is why it is preferable. Pr is preferable because it is more difficult for people to get elected. Pr makes it harder for the political class which is good for the people.

Not everything the Tories like is good

First past the post is favourable to the two mainstream (fptp) parties because if people want to be sure that their vote counts them must vote for one of the main parties. This is bad for the country because democracy is the method by which the state is held in check and socialism is opposed. So it might appear to be a contradiction that the Tories (who oppose) socialism are in favour of fptp. Fptp doesn't give people a choice which means they tend to vote for Labour... and yet the Tories support fptp. This is bad for the country as a whole so even despite Tory support fptp is a bad thing. If the Tories support something that doesn't always mean it is a good thing even though they (vocally) reject communism. The Tories seek to be in power and to control the government and yet they are not being logical in their choice of voting system. They choose fptp which demands that voters are loyal and align themselves with the Tories to reject socialism when with pr it is possible to reject socialism by voting for one of many parties. Fptp makes it more difficult for voters to reject socialism which means pr is better. It is the lack of logic shown by the Tories on this issue which makes them dangerous and we can say that that which is opposed by the Tories is always a good thing because they are illogical. The Tories are illogical and logic is good so the Tories are always bad despite sometimes being opposed to bad things. Just because the Tories are sometimes not wrong doesn't mean they always good. However, the Tories are wrong (and illogical) about pr which means they are bad. Something which is opposed by the Tories (such as pr) is good because the Tories are bad. If the Tories oppose something it is good and the Tories oppose pr. The Tories hate pr so it must be logical and good. The Tories are illogical so pr is logical. Even if the Tories hate something it could still be good.

Fptp is fine unless the Tories are not perfect

No (political) party is perfect but in particular the centre-right party of a fptp duopoly is not perfect which means there is a problem with the fptp voting system. If the centre-right party of a fptp voting system (the Tories) is perfect then everyone will vote for them and there are no problems. If people do not want to vote for them nothing can be done to improve the situation. But if the Tories are not perfect this will mean that voters who are otherwise against communism and socialism will be drawn into voting for other parties and wasting their vote. If the Tories are not perfect then fptp loses anti-communist support and enables the state to expand. If the Tories are not perfect fptp helps the left... the reason for this is that whatever aspect it is of the Tories that (some) people do not like they will be able to find a non-communist alternative using proportional representation. Without pr those anti-communist votes will be lost and the centre-left party will get in. Fptp is bad because the centre-right party is not perfect. If the Tories are perfect then there is no problem with fptp.

The government assumes authority by default

It would make sense to choose a voting system which encourages the electorate to think. If thinking is rewarded (as it is in most systems) then people will get a better government and live happier lives... but with certain systems (fptp) thoughtfulness is not always rewarded. In fact it might even be true to say that with fptp thinking is actively discouraged because being radical and departing from the two main parties diminishes the value of the vote. First past the post tends to 'punish' people who think differently from the mainstream which is not a good feature of a voting system. If we are not rewarded for thinking then the choice will devolve into choosing from between the two (bad) options provided by the government. If government has control (as with fptp) then voters will be asked which of the two versions of statism they prefer (dislike the least) in contrast to being asked to choose a representative. If there is less choice there will be more state because the government will occupy those areas of influence not controlled by the voter. In a democracy government is the default position where the voter has not rejected it so with less choice comes more government. There will be more government in a democracy if there is less choice... as with fptp. Fptp leads to more government than pr because if people have less choice the choices will narrow to two versions of statism. If there is less choice the government will grow to fill the gaps. Where people do not reject the government (in a democracy) it is assumed that the government is able to occupy the gaps (economically) and so the government will grow. If we do not reject the government we get government. Government assumes authority everywhere that it has not been removed by democracy. So if there is less democracy there will be more government.

First past the post is bad and permanent

It is unlikely that the government will concede to changing the voting system in favour of proportional representation (pr). Pr would enable the voters to have more choice and remove bad politicians. This is not in the interests of the state and is the reason it will be very hard to get rid of fptp. Politicians and the state like fptp because it makes it hard for the voting public to get what they want and remove bad politicians. It is because of fptp that bad politicians are protected and so they will want to keep it. If the political class were composed of good people then fptp would not be a problem but it is because people do not like the politicians that (paradoxically?) we need pr and cannot have pr. We cannot have pr because the government is bad and will not allow it... which means we need pr. Fptp (and unwanted government) protects itself automatically. If government is good we would have pr but it is because it is not good that we have fptp and can't have pr. Fptp protects itself because it is bad. We cannot remove fptp because it is bad.

Most people are not communists so pr is better

There is a difference between democracy and communism and so we can deduce that it is better to have as much democracy as possible... which means pr is preferable to fptp. If the type of democracy being used makes no difference then democracy itself makes no difference and the voters effectively choose communism each time. If people think that voters will always choose communism then the voters are not liberal and do not restrain the government and we might as well cancel all future elections. If elections are pertinent then we can say that the voters are liberal and not communist and so we want the voters to have full democracy (if we too are a liberal). Unless all democracy leads to communism (or liberalism is bad) it is better to have pr than fptp because voters are liberal. Only if liberalism is bad or if all elections (whether fptp or pr) lead to communism is it possible to say that fptp is a good idea. Only if all elections are (result in) communism and are redundant would it be possible to say that pr is not preferable to fptp... if elections matter then pr is preferable (and liberal). If elections do not matter (always result in communism) then there would be no reason to switch from fptp to pr... in all other cases (when democracy matters... and does not inevitably lead to communism) it is better to have pr. If it is not better to have more democracy then democracy is useless and people always vote for communism. If people vote for something other than communism then pr is preferable. If democracy is not always communism (people are sometimes liberal) then we can say that pr is more liberal and therefore preferable. People do not always vote for communism... so pr is preferable. We know from experience that given democracy people do not choose to have communism... communism is unpopular and so we can say that more democracy (pr) is always preferable. Only if everyone (more than half) is a communist would it make no difference to switch to pr... but it would do no harm either.

Democracy works because people want to be free

The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to be represented and get the government they want. Assuming government is necessary for property rights then we would want a government which is sanctioned by the people and not arbitrary. Democracy gives the government the best possible mandate and it enables the people to reject unnecessary intervention. If there is not enough democracy it is possible for people in power to take control of resources to an excessive extent and this is obviously detrimental. Government is the absolute authority so it is important to make sure it does not get too much power... which is what democracy is for. We can assume that the people do not want interventionist socialism because if they did they would further want the government to control everything. The end result of increasing socialism is communism which is unpopular and is only possible without democracy. The people do not want communism and they only want a limited amount of socialism. In the final analysis we can think of the electorate as liberals who do not like government intervention and government spending. The people will vote for freedom and free markets where they have the chance... apart from some limited socialism such as a public health service. People do not like the government which is why they can be relied upon to reject communism. The more democracy there is and the more effective the means by which people are able to cast their vote (proportional representation) the less government there will be... because people do not like the government. The government is generally unpopular (but necessary for property rights) so we can expect that with more democracy there will be less government. The government is not liked (it is unchosen) so if there is more democracy there will be less government. If to have democracy means that people will not reject the government then we can discard democracy altogether... if people want communism there is no point in having democracy. Democracy ceases to be meaningful if people do not want freedom... if they want communism there is little point in arranging elections. People are not communists so democracy is effective. If people are not liberals there is no point having a democracy. Democracy relies upon people wanting to be free. If people do not want to be free there is no point in having democracy. Democracy doesn't work if people do not want to be free. If democracy is pertinent and makes a difference to the make-up of the legislature then we can assume the government is not popular. Democracy matters because people are liberal.

First past the post is a criminal system

Anyone who seeks to hold public office has an obligation to make sure they have a democratic mandate. And we can only have a mandate if we have been elected via proportional representation. Without using pr no government official has a right to take up public office and to do so is a crime. It is a crime to take up public office without using proportional representation. If we do not use pr then we are being criminal. Only criminals (in the government) use first-past-the-post.

There is nothing to fear in proportional representation

The problem with fptp is that only one of the main parties will ever get elected which means if the two parties share an ideology it will never be threatened. With pr in contrast if the people want to be free they are able to find a party which will support that. With pr we can be assured that over time the people will get what they want... whatever that is. And we know that they will want freedom (eventually). But with fptp we do not know what we will get because what we get is what the fptp parties choose and not the people. The people will always choose freedom (eventually) but the parties very often choose something different thinking the government is more powerful (and more just) than it is. We know with pr that we will get calm and obvious freedom but with fptp we can get anything. Proportional representation is 'boring' and predictable but that is to be desired in government. We know (roughly) what we will be getting with pr unlike fptp. Pr is boring and predictable unlike fptp.

Proportional representation brings freedom

We can assume in the long run and with all (other) things being equal that people want freedom. From time to time they will vote for some form of interventionist socialism but overall they will choose to have no masters and to be free. This means that (unless we do not want freedom) it is best to choose the voting system which will make it the most easy for the voters to get freedom... which is proportional representation. If people are forced to use fptp they will be able to choose the least disliked party of the two available which means they will be getting less freedom than they want. The government is the mechanism which reduces (personal) freedom for the good of the rest of the population. Government reduces freedom but (we hope) in a beneficial way. So when people are frustrated by democracy and the government it is (always) because they are not getting enough freedom. So when they are frustrated by their insufficient choice in only having two viable parties it means they otherwise would have voted for more freedom. When fptp is frustrating it is because we cannot get enough freedom from the two-party system. The fptp system is always an impediment to freedom. The political parties do not impose more freedom on the population than they want. Democracy is the means by which the people 'push back' on the government to get more (not less) freedom. Democracy gives us freedom but if we do not have enough choice then it works less well. More democracy always leads to more freedom so we would want to introduce pr where it is not already in use. Democracy brings freedom (which is what people want)... so we would want to use pr wherever possible.

There will always be a state if there are groups

If all states are controlled by democracy then we can say that democracy is inevitable and that anarchy is impossible. Even in a stateless society the group will need to make decisions. And if these decisions are to be formalised then there will be a ballot of some kind and democracy. Even in an anarchist society democracy will emerge... it is emergent and so statelessness (if it means the absence of democracy) is impossible. There will always be states if to have a democracy is to have a state. We can think of democracy as (almost) the absence of a state. Democracy is inevitable. If to have democracy is to have a state then we will always have a state even if a group intends to live without a state. Such a group will need to make (collective) decisions which affect each other and so there will be a democracy and a state.

The government is evil if it prefers fptp

The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to have a veto (a right of refusal) on the actions of the state. If there is no democracy this means the state is able to endlessly expand to the extent that the state is all-encompassing. And we know this leads to starvation and death. Democracy enables the people to restrain the government. But if we do not have proportional representation the voter is not able to sufficiently restrain the government. Without pr the government finds it easier to do what it likes because the voter is reduced to choosing the least bad of (just) two parties. With fptp the voter does not have a real choice and we can deduce that the government doesn't want the voter to have a choice. If the government wanted more democracy it would enable the introduction of pr but that is not what the government wants. If the government wanted to be nice to people it would change the voting system to pr but that is not what they want. The government is not nice to people (it is evil) if it does not change the voting system (from fptp) to pr.

First past the post ignores peaceful people

With the first-past-the-post voting system it is difficult for people who do not want a large state to be heard. It is easy for the state to ignore dissent because only two parties realistically have a chance and so pro-statists have more influence. Fptp is bad for anarchists and Libertarians because it restricts choice. This means that only people who consent to some form of interventionist and aggressive state have any influence. Those who reject violence are ignored. Fptp ignores peaceful people. People who are happy for the state to be aggressive and criminal are listened to but not Libertarians.

Only with pr can the right win elections

It's not possible for the right to win fptp elections because the left are much more comfortable voting for the establishment party. Voters who are concerned about individualism and the freedom of the individual are not going to be willing to be loyal and vote for the Tories. Fptp helps Labour because the left do not mind voting for Labour whereas more voters on the 'right' object to being coerced into 'tactically' voting for the Tories. The right is more rebellious which is why fptp favours the left. The right cannot win with fptp. Only the left can win fptp elections. The right will only win when pr is introduced.

There is no freedom without the state

Democracy is the means by which we free ourselves from each other. Without democracy there can be no boundaries and no rules which means that without democracy (and the state) there is no freedom. To have freedom we need to have the state. Freedom requires the state because there is no other objective way to set rules and boundaries. But the problem in many countries is that they do not have proportional representation which means the democratic process does not work very well. If we want to be free to the greatest extent possible then we need to give people the widest possible choice. This means voters are free to reject socialism on offer which they do not want. Fptp forces voters to endorse (or to at least not reject) some form of socialism they do not want... if they are voting tactically. Or alternatively have their vote ignored and wasted. To be fully free requires proportional elections not fptp. We cannot be free without elections but if we do not have pr then we do not have full democracy. To have full freedom and democracy requires pr... fptp is only partial freedom.

Liberal parties should support pr

People like to be given a choice so forcing someone to vote for you means they are less likely to do so. Which means it is very bad for liberal parties to be opposed to pr because (this means) they do not give people a free choice and lose votes. It is bad for liberal parties to lose votes which means it is bad for them to support fptp. All liberal parties should support pr.

Liberals who oppose pr are lying

Everyone who is serious about politics knows that fptp is a problem which protects the state and leads to interventionist socialism. However there are many who appear to be on the right who object loudly about the replacement of fptp with pr. These people are not objecting to pr because it is socialist as they (falsely) claim. They object in reality because they know pr will lead to freedom from the state. They lie about their position claiming to be opposed to socialism (and therefore pr) but the truth is the opposite. They reject pr because they know it is a threat to socialism but they cannot make this claim without being ignored. The left use anti-socialist rhetoric to oppose pr when in reality freedom from socialism is exactly what they are objecting to. The left use anti-socialist rhetoric to protect fptp. Just because opponents of pr claim to be liberal doesn't mean that they are. Only the left oppose pr despite what they (opponents of pr) may claim. No one opposed to pr is a liberal despite what they claim.

The state can survive fptp elections

Democracy is bad for the state because it the means by which the people get a veto on the actions of the state. Democracy is the means by which the people get to say 'no' to the state. And this is why the state generally doesn't like democracy. Democracy is bad for the state... unless we have first-past-the-post which resembles democracy but is something different. Fptp devolves into a two-party system because this is the only means for voters not to be ignored. This means that the state is split into two parties but is resilient against the electorate. People cannot get the freedom they want because fptp doesn't enable them to reject the state. We can only reject the state if we have (guaranteed) proportional elections. Without pr we cannot reject the state and we are certain to have interventionist (and aggressive) socialism. Without pr we will have statism. The state can survive fptp elections unlike with pr. First past the post is not a threat to the state.

Freedom is only possible with democracy

Without democracy there is no freedom. And so with fptp we have a serious problem and a threat to our freedoms. If we can vote for only the lest bad of two (bad) parties then we have a problem which is a threat to our freedoms. Without full (proportional) democracy our freedoms will always be in threat. We can only be free if we have proportional representation. We cannot be free with fptp.

We cannot be free if we have fptp

If people can vote for whomever they like as with proportional representation then this is a form of anarchy because each person is equally represented. It is much easier for governments to form when there is first past the post. We can think of a single-party legislature as 'government' and a coalition of many parties to be more like anarchy. And this is the problem with pr for the ruling establishment of a fptp country. They cannot switch to pr because to do so would be to end their rule. The government want to maintain their position of being able to legally seize assets without legal recourse and so they want to keep fptp. To switch to pr would be for the government to willingly give up this incredible privilege. It is difficult for the government to support pr because it would be difficult to collect taxes. It is only possible to tax people if they do not have a choice of parties to vote for and so it is only with fptp that the government can tax people. With pr there would be no tax which is the reason the government rejects pr. The government rejects pr because it will no longer be able to 'tax' people. The government has no choice but to retain fptp otherwise it will cease to be the government. There are no proportional governments... only fptp is government. Without fptp there is no government. Government is never proportional. There are no proportional governments. We can still have pr even though it is anarchy. There is no reason to reject pr simply because it is not government... we do not need government and so we do not need fptp. We would only need fptp if we need government which we do not. There is no reason to keep fptp. There is no need for fptp. Fptp is unnecessary. There is no need for fptp... there is no need not to give people a choice (and let them be free). If we have democracy we are free but fptp is not democracy and so we are not free. We are not free unless we have pr.

First past the post is oppressive

Voters who support fptp are making it difficult for the rest of the population to achieve fair representation. If people support fptp this means that a large section of the electorate is not able to be properly represented. This is a form of bigotry and discrimination on the part of those voters who refuse to listen to those people who want pr. The democratic rights of the rest of the population is being oppressed by those voters who support fptp.

The smallest governments are proportional

First past the post is worse than pr because if people cannot get what they want electorally they will endorse more government than less. The best political system is that which the people can effectively get exactly what they want. This means the government will have less latitude to interfere and do things which the people do not want. If the people can get what they want this makes it more difficult for the government to serve itself. There is no harm in giving people an effective democracy because we already have democracy in the form of fptp. Fptp doesn't protect the people from themselves because there is still a government. All it does is to enable the state to 'do' more than the people want. Fptp enables more socialism than the people want without removing the problem of democracy itself. Fptp solves no problem but it does enable the state to be larger than it otherwise would be. Fptp has only bad differences when compared with pr. Democracy and government is a fact of life (even in an anarchist system there are other people... society exists) and so it is preferable to have the most efficient system possible to reduce government intervention. (Other people are real.) The smallest government is provided with the most proportional representation. Big government derives from a lack of pr.

Fptp doesn't make the government go away

"Solipsism (i/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). 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. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis."

Whether we think the government (and society) exists depends on whether or not we think we ourselves exist... and whether we think the world around us exists. If we exist then the world exists and is not simply a product of our imagination. So if we exist then solipsism is no longer a valid proposition. Although it cannot be shown that we exist it is a somewhat redundant position to hold particularly with respect to government and the law. If we do not exist then there can be no crimes and government and political discussion is worthless. If we are part of the world and solipsism is false then government exists whether we like it or not. Even if there is not a recognised 'government' there are still other people interacting with each other which means that there is a government (or at least a society) of sorts. If there is a society (and we are real) then it makes sense to replace fptp with pr where fptp exists. The reason for this is that the absence of true democracy doesn't make the state go away. The state is still there even if we do not have pr so pr will not increase the size of the state. Even if it is perceived that pr legitimises the state this is not a problem because legitimacy or not fptp states still exist. If it is a free country then we can do whatever we like (provided it doesn't hurt others) even if the government disagrees. But we do not live in a free country when we have fptp so we might as well resign ourselves to the reality of the situation. There is no point rejecting pr because the government (and the existence of other people) is real. The government is real so it makes no sense to oppose pr.

The state is not good

First past the post is the means by which the state prevents the people from opposing it. People even vote tactically for the fptp parties in the hope that things will change but all this does is strengthen the system. When people vote for the fptp parties they are voting against democracy which means they are opposing the only means by which the people have (are able) to protect themselves against the state. Democracy is the only means by which the people can get freedom if there is a state and so to support fptp is to oppose the people. First past the post supporters are making it more difficult for innocent others to get freedom. First past the post protects the state and everyone who supports it is too protecting the state. Only pr will enable the people to free themselves of the state. If democracy is bad then pr is bad but democracy is not bad because it is the only thing which opposes the state. Only if the state should not be held accountable would it be good to abolish democracy. If there is no democracy there will still be a state so we want the most open form of democracy possible so that the thieves who will inevitably get hold of the state are held accountable. Anarchy is not possible (and even if it is fptp doesn't enable it) so we want the most open system of democracy possible. Fptp protects the state and diminishes the ability of the people to get freedom. The problem with the state is not democracy. The state is not anarchy so anything which is an impediment on the state is a good thing. Democracy is bad if the state is good. Democracy is not bad because the state is not good.

First past the post is a fake version of democracy

We do not have democracy if we do not have proportionality. The establishment have not given the people a chance to reject them if they have given them only a fptp election. Only pr gives the people a true chance to reject the political establishment. First past the post is not true democracy it is a fake version of democracy. Only pr is true democracy.

First past the post does not provide a mandate

No government has a mandate if it has not used a proportional voting method. Only governments which are elected via proportional representation (not first pas the post) have a democratic mandate.

Socialists are tyrants if they do not support pr

It is inconsistent for the party of the left (the Labour party) to be both in favour of socialism and against proportional representation. Tyranny is undemocratic socialism which means that (assuming the Labour party seeks to avoid being tyrannical) to be socialist the Labour party must support pr. The Labour party cannot be socialist (without being a tyrant) if it does not reject fptp and support pr. If socialism is never tyranny then to be socialist the Labour party must support pr... otherwise if it is socialist it is a tyrant. The Labour party is a tyrant (assuming it is socialist) if it does not support proportional representation. Socialism is tyranny if it is not democratically accountable.

The Tories will lose if they continue to support fptp

The Conservative party (known as the Tories) is synonymous with the first-past-the-post voting system. But this fact makes them unelectable to many people including those on the right. Libertarians dislike more than most other people being forced or compelled into doing something... but it is the fptp voting system which compels them to vote for the Tories if they wish to reject Labour. So it is the people on the right who are most offended by fptp and yet the Tory party supports it. The Tories support a political voting system which is most offensive to their own supporters. The Tories support something (fptp) which is bad for the right... and it is this policy which means electoral success is very difficult for them. The Tories will find it hard to do well if they do not drop their support for the fptp voting system. The Tories can only do well if they start to support electoral reform and proportional representation. The Tories can only do well if they support pr. The Tories will continue to fail if they retain their support for first past the post.

Only first past the post is government

The only mechanism by which it is possible to stop the state is democracy. If there is no state then democracy is redundant and irrelevant... but if there is a state then we can say unreservedly that democracy is a good thing. If there is a state and no democracy then it will inevitably lead to tyranny. Democracy is the only thing which is able to stop the state. So more democracy is always a good thing. If there is a state then democracy is a good thing otherwise it is irrelevant. If more democracy is possible (and there is a state) then it is always a good thing to have more democracy. There is no reason to oppose more democracy unless you are the state or supportive of the state. Democracy is always bad news for the state and so only the state and those identifying with the state have a reason to oppose it. Only the state has a reason to oppose democracy. Democracy is bad for no one but the state. Democracy is always good because it exists only if there is a state. (It is not the cause of the state.) Compared to tyranny some democracy is good... as in the case of fptp but more democracy (pr) would be - even - better. Without pr there is a risk of a duopoly emerging. With pr there is no duopoly and (effectively) no government because with full democracy we can represent ourselves which is like (representative) anarchy. Government is caused by fptp. Anything other than fptp is anarchy.

The Tories do not realise that pr is good

If the Tories were intelligent they would realise that proportional representation tends to result in smaller and less interventionist government. Assuming that the Tories approve of having a smaller state then it would be consistent for them to oppose fptp and favour pr. So, since we know that the Tories are for a smaller state, the only explanation for their refusal to agree to pr is that they have not yet worked out that democracy is a good thing and prevents tyranny. It is because the Tories are stupid that they reject pr. The only other explanation is that they are liars who claim to oppose socialism but in reality do not. If we are being generous to the Conservative party (concerning their position on electoral reform) we should describe them as being stupid and unintelligent... rather than knowingly deceptive.

Definition of FPTPers and FPTPists

Definition: People who are content to use the first past the post voting system are fptp-ers or fptp-ists.

We should have pr because the voter is innocent

There is no reason for proportional representation to be illegal. In a free society innocence is presumed (even among the electorate) and so that which cannot be shown to be harmful is allowed. We do not ban things without a good reason and there is no reason to make pr illegal so it should be tolerated. We should have pr unless it can be shown that there is a reason why it is faulty. If pr is not faulty then we should have it. If there is no evidence that pr causes problems then to oppose it is a form of tyranny. It is bad to stop something which is not harmful. (We presume innocence.) Pr is not harmful and so there is no reason to ban it. There is no reason to make pr illegal. Pr should be legal since we presume innocence on the part of the voter.