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.