First past the post is a form of anarchy

We know that if we do not use a proportional voting system the government will have no mandate to rule (if pr has not been used then the government has no mandate)... so this means that when we use fptp there is no mandate and no government. If there is not a mandate there is not a government and so if fptp is being used there is not a government and there is anarchy. There is anarchy if we use fptp and not pr. First-past-the-post is an anarchist voting system. If we do not use pr then we can think of this situation as being without a government.

There is no mandate if there is not pr

To have a mandate to rule a government must be elected via a form of proportional representation. If the alternative (fptp) voting system is used then the voters have not been given a choice and have not been able to refuse government they do not like. Government derives its mandate from democracy but if pr has not been used then the government has no mandate.

Proportional representation is better for the poor

The fptp system is bad for the weak and the poor. With fptp it is the popular candidates who are given all the power. Power is not allocated according to votes or popularity it is given entirely to the candidate who finishes first in an election. This means that the most popular (and powerful) candidate receives a disproportionate amount of power from the process. Fptp favours those who are already powerful and popular... it magnifies the problem of democracy which is that power is allocated according to popularity. Fptp is worse than conventional forms of democracy because it magnifies the power given to the popular candidates. The weak and the powerless do much better with a proportional system because they will be listened to regardless of the popularity of their views. With pr all views are listened to and respected but with fptp only popular views are respected.

First past the post is helpful to the church

If we assume that the centre-right fptp party the Conservatives is sympathetic to the church then we can deduce that fptp is helpful to the church. The reasoning is that since fptp 'forces' voters to vote tactically this means that the two main parties are receiving votes from people they otherwise would not if not for fptp. Fptp enables the two main parties to receive unwarranted votes. So if one of the main parties (the Conservatives) supports the church people are giving political support to the church without wanting to. The church gets more support from the state than it would do if there is a legitimate voting system in use. Because fptp forces voters to be tactical this means that the church does better than otherwise.

Communism is bad for the government

If we are in favour of anarchy then it doesn't matter which voting system we prefer because neither will be used. But if we are in favour of there being a government then it is pertinent whether we choose first-past-the-post or proportional representation. The reason for the significance of this distinction is that with fptp there tends to emerge a two-party system which denies choice to the voter. If we assume that a government without democracy will tend towards communism and we do not like communism then we would seek to ensure this does not happen. If we do not want the government to become a communist government then we would seek to ensure that it is adequately democratically accountable. If there is not enough democracy the government will be a communist government and so (if we do not like communism) we would want to make sure there is enough democracy. The problem with fptp is that it fails to give the voter enough choice which means that we end up with more communism than we would otherwise. With pr there is more choice and so there is less communism. Democracy reduces communism which is why pr is preferable to fptp. Whether we like the government or not there are clearly arguments in favour of making sure the system is sufficiently democratic. (Communism is worse than otherwise even for anarchists.) It is in the interests of the government itself to make sure it doesn't use a system of voting which denies the people a true choice. It is in the interests of the government not to be a communist government.

Not all liberals are Tories

The Conservative party is a reaction to the fptp voting system. Fptp rewards popular parties and so a collectivist party such as the Labour party will do well with fptp. As a result of this those voters who seek to counter-act the Labour party must be loyal to a single party... which in the UK turns out to be the Tory party. Without fptp liberal-minded (non-socialist) voters would be able to vote for whichever party they like. It is because of the nature of the fptp voting system that non-socialist voters must be loyal to the Tories. Without fptp the Tory party would be less strong because its strength is borne of the necessity to vote for a big party. Without fptp the Tory party would be much less strong but there would be many other liberal parties each of which would be able to gain representation. Proportional representation would remove the requirement of non-socialist voters to vote for the Tory party. Without fptp the Tories would be much less strong but liberalism would be better off. The strength of the Tories under fptp is evidence of the vulnerability of the non-socialist right when using the fptp voting system. Fptp is bad for the 'right' despite the success of the Tories with this system. Fptp forces the right to aggregate around the Tories which is a sign of weakness not strength. If the right is strong (as with pr) they will be able to vote for smaller parties in the knowledge their vote will not be ignored. The strength of the Tories when using fptp is not an indication that fptp is good for the right... it is not. Fptp is bad for the right despite the success of the Tories when using this system.

Fptp is good and pr would be even better

There is nothing more civilising than democracy it is the means by which we can be sure that people are not being oppressed. Democracy enables people to reject the state with no more than their vote which is simply their opinion. They do not need to demonstrate their power or intimidate their antagonists... their vote alone suffices. It is the means by which we remove power and force from government and society. Without democracy disputes are resolved by the use of force. With democracy it is not the strongest who gets to make the law it is everyone who can vote. Democracy gives power to the weak where they would not otherwise get power... so democracy is to be celebrated if we celebrate civilisation. Only people who would seek to oppress the weak dislike democracy. Only bad people dislike democracy everyone else should celebrate it which is why it is bad to have a non-proportional system of voting. If we do not have pr (but instead fptp) we have not exploited the full civilising power of democracy. Fptp is better than anything else apart from full proportional representation. Fptp is good but pr is better. In fact the only thing better than fptp is pr. Democracy is wonderful and pr is even better than fptp. People who like fptp would like pr even more.

Crime is unpopular

Without democracy we cannot be free because either we will have totalitarianism (government without democracy) or we will have anarchy and no laws. If there is no government there are no laws and we cannot defend ourselves from criminals. If there is no government there will be no property rights and no justice. We require the state to prevent crimes and so we require democracy to be free from crimes. We will be subject to crimes either from the state or individuals if we do not have democracy. Democracy is the only thing which prevents crime. But the problem with fptp (as a form of democracy) is that we are able only to choose the least bad of two (usually bad) options... and this is not democracy. With true democracy we are able to represent ourselves as in the case of a referendum. A referendum is true democracy and for the same reasons so is pr. Pr is true democracy because people can vote directly on laws just as they can in a referendum. If we are represented in a just and accurate manner (as with pr) then our representative is voting on legislation as we would. So to have proportional representation is to have true representation. If we do not have proportional representation we do not have true representation and we are not represented. The two main parties do not represent us and so we can only be represented if we have pr. Anything other than pr is not representation and not democracy and since it is only democracy which enables us to be free from crime then we will be subject to crime wherever there is not pr. Only pr will prevent crime. First past the post does not prevent crime because whichever of the two main parties which gets elected is able to exploit the electorate due to the lack of true representation. With pr people can get what they want but with fptp the two main parties are able to take advantage of the lack of democracy and the people will not be protected from crime. The people will be vulnerable to crime if there is not proportional representation. Only pr will protect the people from crime.

Only the state dislikes democracy

Democracy is always bad for the state because it the means by which the people are able to hold the state accountable. And so if we want the state to be accountable and not totalitarian we would prefer to have more democracy. Since pr is more democracy than fptp we would want to replace fptp with pr if we want the state to be held accountable. If we like the state (more than the electorate) and do not want it to be held accountable then it would make sense to oppose the introduction of pr. Fptp is good if we both like the state and recognise that democracy is bad for the state. If one of these statements is not true (or one of their negations is true*) then we would find pr preferable... if either the state is bad or if we think democracy is helpful (not harmful) to the state then it makes sense to prefer pr. People who support the state but not pr recognise that democracy is not helpful to the state. Someone who recognises that democracy is not helpful to the state will welcome fptp if they are pro-state. If the state is bad then either democracy is helpful to the state or pr (which is more democratic) is preferable to fptp. Democracy doesn't help the state and so pr is good unless the state is good. The state is bad and democracy is bad for the state so pr is good... if either of the first two claims are false then pr is not good. To not like pr is to either think democracy is not bad for the state or to like the state. It is logical for statists to not like democracy (and pr) but no one else. Pr is bad for the state unless democracy is not bad for the state and so pr is good since that which is bad for the state is good. People who support fptp either deny that democracy is bad for the state or they support the state. Anti-statists who support fptp must think that the state likes democracy. The state is not democracy and so it is illogical for an anti-statist to prefer fptp.

*If the state is bad or if democracy is helpful to the state then pr is good.

Only Labour benefit from first past the post

The fptp system is highly helpful to Labour for obvious reasons but it is much less helpful to the Tories. Fptp encourages tactical voting and we can understand why someone who dislikes the Tory party might feel inclined to vote for the Labour party to keep them out. The same does not happen so much in reverse. The tactical vote tends to be a punishment vote but people on the right do not tend to use elections to punish the other party... they have their own party to support and have no reason to punish people. To a Tory voting Tory is an endorsement of the status quo... they have no reason to 'punish' Labour. But this arrangement is very favourable to the Labour party because fptp elections tends to deliver victories for the centre-left. It is only the liberals who lose out in this arrangement. Fptp protects the Labour party from a liberal victory. So if the Tories support fptp we can deduce (if they are being logical) that they would prefer the Labour party to win than to have the liberals. Only the Labour party benefit from the fptp voting system. The Tories do not benefit from it because they receive very few tactical votes... they would not lose many votes in a switch to proportional representation. Only the Labour party would do significantly worse with pr... everyone else would do better which is why pr is to be welcomed. To support fptp is to support the Labour party because only they significantly benefit from it.

Proportional rep. is more like anarchy than fptp

People do not like government and they do not like being owned. People instinctively reject slavery and they do not like being a slave which is why when they are given the choice they will choose to reduce the size of the government. If there is enough democracy there will be no state since by definition the state is the absence of choice. If we have enough choice in our every-day activities then there will be no state. Democracy is the absence of government which is why (in comparison to fptp) pr is like anarchy. Pr is anarchy because to be given a choice is to be free. It is only if there is not choice and democracy that there is a government so we can think of fptp as being a form of democracy which favours the existence of the government. Without fptp (with pr) there would be no significant government because if we are able to represent ourselves then we have been given a choice. There is no government if we can make a choice for ourselves which is why pr is more like anarchy than fptp.

First past the post is elected dictatorship

We are not governed with our consent... it makes no sense to think of the consent of the governed because by definition if we are being governed we have no choice in the matter. To have a government is to have an agency which has the right to tell you what to do. Government is absolute power or it means nothing which is why it never has consent. We might not object to all of its laws but that doesn't mean we consent to it entirely and this is why fptp is a problem. If we consent to the government then it is not a contradiction to arrange an election whereby the winner of the most votes takes absolute control. Since (it is assumed) we generally agree with the concept of being governed then we would have no complaint with this arrangement. We are lead it is assumed and the election is merely to choose who is the most competent to perform that role. We are choosing the best person to be the leader... and it is assumed that there will always be a leader. If we are leaderless then it makes more sense to have proportional elections since these are similar to self-representation. To have a proportional election enables people to choose representatives who will vote similarly to the how voter would on legislation. It is like replacing all parliamentary votes with a referendum (on each law) since our representative will vote roughly as we would do ourselves. Proportional representation is like having perpetual referendums. We are choosing someone to vote on legislation on our behalf. With fptp we are choosing a leader for the country as a whole. With pr it is like the entire country is the parliament. With fptp we choose a 'leader' who can veto or approve legislation on our behalf. With pr no one makes the rules (although rules are made) and with fptp a single leader makes the rules. With fptp a single person makes the rules on our behalf (who is delegated by the people to govern them) but with pr the people retain the ability to set the rules... and no one has any special status. (Pr is like democratic anarchy.) With pr the people are the government so there is never any question of their consent being violated... it is impossible for the people not to give consent to themselves. Fptp is not anarchy because to give a single person absolute power over the people is not anarchy... even if that person is chosen in an election. With fptp we choose a dictator but with pr there is no dictator because we own and rule ourselves.

If there is more choice (as with pr) there is less state

If we have democracy and a state it is not intelligent to deprive people of the right to have proportional representation. If we have democracy then there is a state and to have first-past-the-post does not contradict that fact. To have fptp doesn't mean we have no state... we still have a state if we are using fptp and so it makes no sense to deprive people of more choice. If people are given more choice then the government will be smaller because people do not like the state... it is not chosen. Democracy is the means by which the people get to reduce and restrain the state so if we diminish the power of democracy then we help the state. If we have fptp then people can choose only the least bad of the two main parties and this means that the state is not sufficiently constrained. Pr doesn't oppress the voter but fptp does oppress the voter and if there is a state (as there is with fptp) this is not what we want to do. Fptp oppresses the voter and is not anarchy so it helps the state. If there is not anarchy we want to enhance democracy because it is the only thing which prevents totalitarianism. If there is a state then freedom comes only from democracy so if there is democracy we want the most democratic kind. More democracy is always good unless there is no government but if there is no government then it is meaningless to even discuss the issue. There is no advantage to have fptp over pr because democracy is the means by which the people constrain the state and so to oppress democracy (as fptp does) is only to oppress the people not the state. In a democracy the people are not the state and that which oppresses the people protects the state. Democracy is accountability and it is never good to enable the state to be unaccountable. There is no reason to protect the state as fptp does... compared with pr. Pr would expose the state to more accountability and more democracy. If fptp is not anarchy then it is helpful to the state. Anarchy is freedom and choice (wealth) and so pr is more like anarchy than fptp. First past the post is a form of poverty. The state resists choice... if there is more choice there is less state and so with pr there is less state than there is with fptp. Fptp reduces choice which increases the state.

Proportional representation is never harmful

If there is a democracy then we are certain to have a base level of freedom defined by how much freedom people want. There cannot be less freedom than the people want in a democracy assuming the democracy works and is efficient. If people want to be free then in a democracy they will be free. If they do not want to be free then democracy will not improve their condition. Democracy is only beneficial if there is a state it can never be harmful. Democracy can only improve freedom if there is a state. Since proportional representation is more democratic than fptp we can deduce that it will never be harmful. It might be the same as fptp but pr will never reduce freedom because the people want to be free from the state... by definition.

Proportional representation is innocent

It is logical that the government would choose to use first-past-the-post since the government do not like democracy. The purpose of democracy is to make the state accountable to the people but they are instinctively opposed to accountability... or they would not be the state. People do not go into politics to listen to people... they go into politics to tell people their ideas. So the state doesn't like democracy and it is perfectly natural and consistent for the state to support fptp. It is strange that apparently anti-socialist politicians would be willing to participate in fptp elections given that it is almost impossible for them to win. First past the post tends to exclude politicians who want freedom from the political establishment. Fptp is designed to the advantage of socialists and the left so it is strange that a liberal would participate. But we can think of liberals as being politically innocent and so fptp falsely excludes innocent people from politics. Liberals and their favoured voting system (proportional representation) are innocent and so fptp falsely restricts the freedoms of innocent people.

First past the post is a criminal system

We are free if we can choose. If there is a choice in any situation then we are free and no crime is being imposed on us. If we can choose to refuse something happening to us then no crime has been committed. We commit a crime if do not give other people a choice in our actions affecting them. If other people are not free to be free of our actions then we are being a criminal. Crimes are defined by a lack of choice and a lack of freedom. So if we have a democracy that fails to offer voters the fullest amount of freedom and choice then we have imposed a criminal democracy. Any democracy which fails to provide the voters with the widest choice is a criminal democracy. Democracy is bad if it is not proportional since with pr we can vote in a naive way without tactical considerations. First past the post is a criminal voting system because it deprives the voters of the fullest possible choice.

Proportional elections are a natural right

All elections must be fair and equal and if they are not fair our rights have been violated. This is obviously true if the ballots have been tampered with because then someone is able to claim authority over us without a proper mandate. But it is also true if the elections being held are not proportional. If there are elections we have the right to vote for whom we like the most without the need to take into account how other people will vote (tactical voting). If we must try to work out how other people will vote in order to maximise the effectiveness of our own vote then our democratic rights have been violated. First past the post is a violation of our (natural) democratic rights. We might argue perhaps that since it is the government who organise elections it is they who have a right to determine their nature. But that is not the case. The existence of a state is generally an imposition on the people they do not choose it otherwise it would be part of the normal economy. The state is different in that it is a cost to the people... presumably a necessary cost. We might think it is vital to have a state otherwise the community will be exploited by a bigger and more powerful state. If this is the case (and a state is necessary) then the state has an obligation to make sure that it is democratic (with the consent of the people) and that the elections held are proportional. If the state is not elected proportionally then it has violated the natural rights of the citizens. The citizens have a natural right to proportional elections.

The electorate is innocent

To give someone more government than they want is to punish them. We do not need to look deeply into the history of the world to see the great crimes which have been perpetrated by the state. It is natural then that people would want to make sure they have the means to constrain the state as far as they can. This is the motivation for democracy... it is make sure that if there is an agency which can make its own laws (the state) then at least the people will have some mechanism by which the state can be constrained. Democracy is the price the government must pay for being the government. But if we do not have full proportional democracy then we do not have true democracy at all. If we do not have pr it is evident that (due to Duverger's law) very quickly a two-party system will emerge. This is not democracy. It is not democracy to be able to choose the least bad of two states. Democracy enables the people to choose their representatives directly not merely to choose the least bad of the candidates likely to be possible winners. Once the people need to make considerations with regard to how other people are likely to vote (tactical voting) we do not have true democracy. Democracy is the means by which the people protect themselves from the (a) state and so we would want to make sure they have the best democracy possible. If the people are criminals and the government is good then there would be no need for democracy and we could simply have a communist state. It is because the people (the voters) are innocent of the laws imposed by the state that democracy is essential. Without democracy eventually the people will be arrested and placed in prison. Democracy is an impediment to the crimes of the state which is why fptp is inadequate. The people are innocent until proven guilty (they are assumed to be innocent) and so there is no reason to deny them the greatest amount of democracy possible... which is pr. There is no reason to deny the people democracy. Only if the people are guilty would it be consistent to reject pr and prefer fptp. The people are not guilty and so we are punishing innocent people if we impose on the people anything other than pr. To impose fptp on the people is to prosecute a crime. It is criminal for the state to use fptp. The people are not guilty and so there is no reason or justification to use fptp. Fptp would be justified only if the people are a priori (assumed to be) guilty... not for anything they have done but just a matter of dogma. To use fptp is similar to punishing the electorate for voting. (If democracy itself is bad then fptp would make sense.) If voting is good (or at least not bad) then there is no reason to punish the voter with fptp. It is only if we are offended by the democratic process that we would want to use fptp in which case we must be the state. Only the state would hate democracy and so only the state would prefer to use fptp than pr. Pr is better for people who are not the state... fptp is good only for the state.

Proportional representation is good for anarchists

It is better not to have a government because without government we can use objective facts to determine the truth. Without a government we seek to find out if someone has done a crime using evidence and facts. If there is a government there is an agency which is able to act differently from the rest of the economy. With a government it is possible for crimes to be committed and for these to be forgiven or even encouraged merely due to the fact that they are being perpetrated by the government. In a democracy it is not possible to claim that the truth of a situation or a crime is altered by our opinion of it. Crimes (and non-crimes) are objective facts even if they are popular. Democracy doesn't alter the morality of aggression and property rights. Given that it is better not to have a government (for these reasons) then we can choose a voting system based on the question of which will give us the least government. It is clear that proportional representation will give much less government than fptp. The reason for this is that pr favours and encourages the very mechanisms which democracy is used for. We use democracy to constrain the state and to prevent its encroachment into the economy. If we do not have democracy we will end up with communism and so democracy stops the government... due to the government being unpopular. If the government is not unpopular then there would be no point in having democracy (it would be redundant) because everyone would vote to endorse the state and we would end up with totalitarianism. It is because the state is (inherently) unpopular that we have democracy and that its results matter. So we have democracy because the government is unpopular... so then we would want to choose the voting system which enables the people to express their disdain for the state most easily. The very premise of democracy is that the opinion of the people is not subordinate to the state and so for that reason it also makes sense to have pr. If democracy is legitimate then pr would naturally be preferable to fptp. Proportional representation enables the people to reject the state which is good if the state is inherently bad (which it is... truth is objective). Truth is not democratic and so we would want to have the lease degree of state possible. With fptp it is tacitly assumed that the state is virtuous and that the voters are in some aspect criminal. The state is there (it is supposed) to keep a lid on the people and hold them down... for good reasons. The people are assumed to be criminal and the purpose of the state is to oppress them. Of course this assumption is false. But with fptp we are given a choice between only two different parties. This means that it is easy for each of the parties to oppress the people (against their wishes) in different ways. It is like an innocent person being given a choice between two different custodial sentences. With pr we are able to plead our innocence and vote for a somewhat anarchist in nature party.

Democracy is an impediment to the state

It is necessary to have a government if we want civilisation because without government we cannot define crimes. So we need the government... but we also need democracy because without it we cannot tell what the people want. Without democracy there is a risk that the government will encroach (into the economy) to a greater and greater extent. Even if they have good intentions. The problem with government is that there is a risk of communism and totalitarianism and we have democracy to prevent this. And this is part of the reason why pr is preferable to the fptp system. We use democracy to protect ourselves from the state but fptp does not give the full means to do this. We can protect ourselves much more effectively if we have pr. With pr only those politicians fully endorsed by the voter can get into power. With fptp it is possible for politicians to get into power merely by pleasing their party hierarchy and not the people. Democracy forces the state to listen to and respect the people. Without democracy there is no reason for the state to respect the people (the state does not fear the people). With democracy and especially with pr... the state fears the people otherwise it will not be in power. Democracy and pr is the means by which the state will fear and listen to the people.

Proportional representation is right wing

The government is right-wing. It is the government which defines and defends property rights which means that the government is right-wing. It is the left which challenges established property rights and so we can think of them as being anarchist... and even criminal. Anarchists are all on the left and the government is on the right. Anarchists are left-wing. We can also think of the fptp voting system as being anti-government and hence left-wing. Fptp is a threat to property rights and so it is on the left. With pr we can correctly and fairly establish and maintain property rights. This means that pr (like the government) is on the right.

First past the post enables crime

It is important to have democracy because without (government and) democracy we have no objective property rights. To have property requires democracy so democracy is a good and necessary thing. But if we do not have proportional representation it will be possible for criminals to get into parliament without the required support. Any politician who is in parliament without sufficient (proportional) support is a criminal. To have a parliament free of criminals requires proportional representation. To protect fptp is to protect criminals. Not to have democracy is to have anarchy and this means we have no legitimate property rights and so we cannot prevent crime. We need to have a government to stop crime but with fptp we do not have a legitimate government because criminals are not prevented from gaining power. Fptp lets criminals have power but with pr we can prevent this. First past the post is a kind of anarchy because we are not ruled by the law but instead criminals. There is no government if we have fptp. Only with pr can we say that there is a valid government and since we need government to have property then only with pr is there (the existence of) true property rights. We cannot stop crime if we do not have pr.

Democracy is inevitable

The concept of a crime is meaningless outside the context of a group. (Individuals can't do a crime to each other because there is no definition of what is a crime for people on their own.) Only in the context of the state (the group) are there crimes. In an anarchist system it would be impossible to defend property under the law. There can be no (objective) law in an anarchist system. There can be no crimes if there is not a recognised group... the reason for this is that it is only the group which defines property rights. It is the weight of opinion which determines property rights and the nature of crime. If we recognise no group then individuals have no way to define what is and isn't criminal and we have a lawless anarchy. It is the group and by extension the state (the group is a state) which protects property rights and defines right from wrong. Without a state we cannot know what is and isn't a crime. Crimes are defined only by the state and it is an oxymoron to think of crimes in an anarchist system. (Anarchy is lawlessness.) If there is no state there is no law. The state is the law. In order to achieve civilisation we need to enshrine a state. There can be no civilisation without a state because this is the source of property rights. So then any society of people have a (natural) right to form a state. The formation of a state is a natural right. Any threat to the state (such as a violation of a valid property claim) is a crime because it is the state alone which defines what is and isn't a crime. What is bad for the state is bad. The state defines what is (not) criminal. We have a right to form a state because we have a right to civilisation. Since to be legitimate states must be democratic we can say that any threat to democracy itself is a crime. This means any form of totalitarianism such as one-party rule is a crime. Also we can think of the fptp voting system as a form of criminal action because it threatens the democratic rights of the citizens. Just as we have a right to form a state we also have democratic rights. We have a right to make sure the state is accountable only to the electorate. Fptp is a crime which violates the democratic rights of voters. The only voting system which protects the rights of voters is pr which makes sure there is no need for tactical voting. If there is a need to vote tactically this is a sign that the democratic rights of the voters have been violated. For the state not to provide proportional elections is a violation of the rights of the voters. This by extension is a violation of the rights of the people to form a (legitimate) state.

Power can be given to unpopular candidates

It is ridiculous that it is sufficient to finish 'first' in an election to gain all the power where people are going to be governed by the winner. There is no reason to have only one winner when representatives are being chosen for a legislature. In fact it makes much more sense to have very many more than one winner because of the inevitable diversity of the electorate. If only one person can 'win' then people will choose the least bad of the candidates which they think have a chance of winning... they will choose someone who they think might win and they can tolerate. This means they are rejecting the other likely candidates which they do not like and hoping they do not win so their vote will count. They are not choosing someone who truly represents them. They are choosing the least bad of the candidates which are likely to win and so they are hoping the other candidates do not do well. With pr it doesn't matter so much how the other candidates do our vote still counts whether they do well or not. With fptp the power and influence of our vote depends on how other candidates do and (only) whether we win. With pr the power of each vote is more-or-less unaffected by how other people choose to vote. We do not need to concern ourselves with which candidates have a chance to win and what is the best way to oppose and block another candidate. With pr our votes blocks all other candidates. The key difference between fptp and pr is that with pr there is no winning post. (And there is no need for a winning post.) With fptp there is a winning post which is that we must gain more votes than all the other candidates and in this event we take all the legislative power. The post is to beat all the other candidates. But we do not need a post... it is perfectly possible to have politics and elections without such a post. We can have elections where power is allocated directly according to the proportion of the votes cast. In this way power is allocated proportionally and it doesn't matter how popular our preferred choice is... the influence of our vote is unaltered. We do not need to work out whether we are voting for a popular candidate. It is possible to have elections where we are not concerned with beating the other candidates but instead with the proportion of votes cast being received by a particular candidate. There is no reason to disproportionately reward a candidate for coming first and winning the election... votes can still be cast according to the proportion of the vote. There is no reason to use a winner-takes-all (fptp) type system and there are many reasons why this type of system is detrimental. (If people are voting tactically they are not being served by the election and the democratic process.) We can give power to all candidates who receive a significant number of votes (above a certain low threshold) not only to the winner. There is no reason t use fptp-type voting systems. There is no reason to reward only the winner in an election. People who don't win can and 'should' receive legislative power for the process to be effective. Not only winners should receive power. People who don't win should also be given power. Power can be given to all voters not only to those who have chosen a popular candidate.

Labour will always win unless the Tories support pr

Since property rights are a requirement for civilisation and capitalism we cannot have freedom without the government. Property rights come only from the government because otherwise they would not be objective which means to have free markets and capitalism requires government. Government is the source of capitalism. And since government can be legitimate only if it is elected democratically there can be no markets and no capitalism without democracy. Democracy is the source of free trade and free markets. Given this it would make sense if we are a capitalist to fully welcome democracy and to favour proportional representation. If we do not have pr then voters (who endorse the free market) are not able to fully get what they want which is bad. The people want free markets and capitalism (thankfully... capitalism is impossible if it is not popular) and so we would want to have the most democratic system possible if we are capitalists. Capitalists like democracy. Not to like democracy suggests that we do not like the views of the people and so we want something other than free markets. People who do not like democracy (and by extension pr) do not like freedom and capitalism. If a party (such as the Tories) objects to and rejects pr then we can deduce that despite what they may say they are not for capitalism. Only parties which fully support pr are behind free markets and capitalism and so if the Tories do not support pr they are not capitalists. The Tories claim to be opposed to communism so if they are speaking the truth about this we can only deduce that they are in favour of some sort of stateless anarchy where all crimes are permitted... a type of Armageddon scenario where we must all fend for ourselves and there is no mutual collaboration. Only this dark vision is consistent with their position on rejecting pr. Unless they are communists the Tories must dislike pr because they dislike freedom and life itself. Given this dystopian outlook it is not possible for someone who values life to vote for the Tories and so the only option for someone who does not want to see the destruction of the world is to vote for the Labour party in a fptp system. If we do not want to vote for the Labour party because they might be socialist we can only do so with pr assuming we do not want to destroy the world. Even capitalists have no choice but to let the Tories lose to Labour because the end of the world is incompatible with capitalism. Without fptp it is highly unlikely that the Labour party would ever get into power because the voters want freedom and capitalism. It is because of the fptp voting system that non-dystopians are forced to support (or at least not oppress and oppose) the Labour party. Fptp causes the Labour party to have great success. This is also true of the Democrats in America who are the analogue of the British (UK) Labour party. Proportional representation would give the people more freedom because it would give them more democracy. Labour do well with fptp despite being somewhat socialist because voters generally do not want to see the end of the world. Voters are not socialist but the fptp system forces them to let Labour in... or allow the end of the world. They fear the end of the word more than the Labour party. Only if a Labour victory is worse than death would it be possible for voters to (consistently) reject the Labour party in a fptp election and let the Tories win. The Tories will not win a fptp election unless Labour is worse than death itself. Fptp is bad for capitalism because people want to be free but fptp helps Labour... with pr there would be much more freedom. Without pr people are 'forced' by the voting system to reject the Tories (to prevent the end of the world) and so this creates a kind of monopoly for the Labour party who offer a weak version of capitalism. Pr would be more capitalistic than fptp because Labour are not fully capitalistic. Only if the Labour party are (perfect and) fully capitalist would pr not be an improvement on fptp. Pr is better than fptp because Labour are not (entirely) capitalists. Labour are not full capitalists they are only partial capitalists. Labour do not offer the most amount of freedom... but we have no choice but to let them win in a fptp system... because at least they are collectivists not anarchists. We have no choice in a fptp election but to protect the state and property. It is impossible to vote for anarchists and so it is impossible to vote for any party which is on the right and opposed to the introduction of pr. To vote against the Tories is to protect the state (and property rights) from anarchism. To vote for Labour in a fptp system is to vote for property rights. Rational people have no option but to support Labour and let the Tories fail in a fptp election. If the Tories want to free the country from the Labour party they must drop their support for fptp. Without Tory support for fptp there would be no (successful) Labour party. If the Tories support fptp the Labour party will always win... Tory support for pr is the only way to stop the Labour party. Labour will always win unless the Tories switch their preference to pr. Only Tory support for pr (Tory suicide) will defeat the Labour party. Labour win unless the Tories kill themselves. The Tories need to kill themselves (by supporting pr) otherwise we will be stuck with perpetual Labour election victories. It is essential that the Tories (kill themselves and) support pr... or the country will fall to the Labour party... permanently.