Proof that first past the post is oppressive

The reason to have democracy (defined by elections) in contrast to a dictatorship is that with a dictatorship there is no accountability and constraint on the powers of the state. With a democracy the people are able to reject and remove bad politicians. It is specifically this power to reject rather than accept which makes democracy liberating. It is because democracy allows the people to remove bad politicians that it is able to reduce the power of the state. Democracy is more like anarchy than dictatorship. So democracy reduces the power of the state because it gives people the ability to refuse bad government. It is a negative process. And the more choice we have the more we are able to reject the government. If we have a first-past-the-post system then this will tend towards a two-party system whereby votes for smaller third parties are wasted. The reason for this is that knowing in advance that a party you support will not do well means that it is a waste of your vote to choose it. Votes are more meaningful if they cast for the bigger parties which results in a two-party system. See Duverger's law for more information on this. If we can only (meaningfully) choose between two parties then there is less choice and less ability to refuse which crucially is the mechanism by which liberty is attained. If we can choose from more candidates we can reject more and get a smaller state. With complete anarchy we can reject all politicians... we are not governed at all. Being able to choose and reject government makes it smaller because ultimately people do not want to be ruled they want to be free. It is the natural state to be free and perverse to want a government and this is why... eventually... choice in elections will lead to less government. People do not like to be slaves and they do not like their fellow people to be slaves either which is why more choice leads to less government and why first past the post is oppressive. Fptp reduces choice and since the people (ultimately) want to be free this will result in more government which is oppressive.

First past the post is illogical

It makes no sense for the state to use anything other than proportional representation. If the state is good and protects us from the the extreme demands of the market (as a social insurance policy) then it is illogical for the state not to use pr. Since the people want the state to be good then to deny them full democracy (by imposing fptp) makes no sense. If the state is helpful to the people then the people can be trusted with full democracy... which is pr. To use fptp suggests that the people do not know what is good for them in which case government itself (by democracy) makes no sense. (And only anarchy would be logical.) If democracy is logical then it makes no sense to use fptp. Only anarchy and pr are the logical positions... to use fptp suggests that (democracy and) government is good but that the people do not know what is good for them. If the people are logical then we must use pr otherwise there would be no democracy and no government. If there is (democracy and) government then fptp is illogical. Fptp is never logical if government is good then we should use pr if we are being logical.

Only the people can remove fptp

First past the post gives the government an unfair advantage over the people. The reason for this is that with fptp it is possible to govern with (only) a minority of the vote. A plurality is required but not a majority which means that it is possible to govern with a minority of the vote provided it is a plurality. This gives an advantage to the politicians and the political class. To make things easier for the people we should have pr but this can only be achieved (once fptp has become established) if the people demand it. If the people remain complicit with the fptp system (by continuing to endorse one-or-other of the fptp parties) then it will remain. Only if the people revolt and refuse to vote for parties which prefer fptp will it be possible to replace fptp with pr (which is in the interests of the people). It is not in the interests of the state to remove fptp because their interests are not aligned with those of the people. The state will retain fptp because it serves their interests and so it is only the people who can remove fptp.

The right prefer pr or they are insane

If people consent to the government then democracy makes no difference and is simply an endorsement of the state. Democracy is pertinent only if the people do not like the government. So democracy is either liberating or it is neutral. It can never be a bad thing for the state to require a mandate from the people. So we can deduce that the 'left' will have less to gain from democracy than the 'right' who are more interested in rejecting the government. People who endorse and identify with the state will not be too interested in democracy. It is anarchists and other anti-statists who have the most to gain from being given a vote. If we can describe these groups as being on the right then democracy is bad only for the left not the right. Democracy is nothing but helpful to the right and the right should have no reason to reject or suppress democracy. To suppress democracy is not right-wing. So given that fptp is less democratic than pr we can say that anyone who rejects pr (in favour of fptp) is not right-wing. Only pr is tolerable to the right and it is only the right who are oppressed by fptp. There are some people who deny that fptp influences voting behaviour and claim that it has no bearing on political outcomes. If we think fptp is the same as pr we will be indifferent between the two. But if we do not deny that fptp makes a difference to politics then to support it (and reject pr) means that we can only be on the left. If we prefer fptp to pr then we either deny that it makes a difference or we are on the left. No one on the right (who recognises that fptp is pertinent) prefers fptp. The right either prefer pr or they are insane.

Proportional representation is an obligation

The state has an obligation to use proportional representation in its elections otherwise there will be the problem of a two-party system. The intention of democracy is to enable the people to reject and refuse government intervention. If there is not sufficient (proportional) democracy then the voters will be subject to the least unpopular of the two main parties and will not easily be able to reject the government. If we are truly represented then we can reject the government but with fptp it is hard to reject the government because we can only choose the least bad of two parties (if we want to be sure that our vote will count). There is no legitimate reason for the state to use anything other than proportional representation. There is no legitimate reason for the state to stifle democracy.

First past the post is a form of government

Democracy is concerned with enabling the people to reject government. It is being able to say 'no' which characterises the nature of freedom and democracy enables the people to reject government. But if we do not have proportional elections this means that generally people will be inclined to vote for one of the main parties for fear of their vote otherwise being wasted. This means that they are able to reject only one political party (one set of politicians) as opposed to being able to reject many. If they are able to reject many (as with pr) this will give them more freedom from the government... because being able to reject something is to be free of it. First past the post is bad for the same reasons that government itself is bad... it means that our choices and freedoms are diminished. If there is less choice there is more government by definition (government is a lack of choice) and so if there is fptp there is more government. Fptp is bad if government is bad.