It is a crime to use first past the post

Some people hold the view that democracy fails to justify the force of government and that government even with elections and democracy is illegitimate. Whilst that may be true few people could argue that government without democracy is not a crime. To have government without democracy is simple tyranny and there can be very few arguments made in favour of this. There is little difference in a direct and obvious crime and a 'government' if there is no democracy. Elections legitimise government and they are the only thing which does so. So then we have reached the conclusion that without democracy government is criminal. By extension we can further deduce that any effort to stifle democracy such as restricting the nature of people who are able to stand for election or restricting whom can vote is also a crime of oppression. Any effort to restrict or reduce democracy is a crime. But if first-past-the-post is used this means that eventually a two-party system will emerge which reduces choice and representation for the voter. Since we can now no longer credibly claim to be ignorant of the ill effects of a first-past-the-post system (that it leads to a two-party system) then to deliberately and knowingly use this system is a form of tyranny. It is a crime to use fptp knowing that it reduces choice and since we can no longer claim to be ignorant of the effects of fptp then to use fptp is a crime.

To have property rights requires a fair voting system

There can be no civilisation without property rights which means there is a need for some form of government. Without government there are no property rights... but for there to be government it must be valid... and democratic. First past the post isn't entirely democratic in fact it tends to result in a system favourable to the elite whereby a small group of people are able to control politics. In order to control politics in a fptp system we need only to control both of the main parties... since no other parties are able to do well. This means that fptp is favourable to the rich and privileged and doesn't give 'the people' a share of the government. Perhaps we could argue that there are advantages to this in that to give the people full control of the government might (and has) lead to disastrous consequences... but ultimately the alternative - a government run by a small elite - is worse especially where the real risk of the type of tyranny we have seen in the past is diminishing. The people can now be trusted with proportional representation. To have the government run by a small elite (fptp) is in effect to have no government which means that property rights become arbitrary and there is discord and uncertainty amongst the people. To have genuine and valid property rights requires a legitimate government which is not provided by a two-party system. First past the post is a kind of anarchy but that is not to be welcomed since property rights (and hence civilisation) rely on there being a valid government in existence. Valid property rights rely on there being a valid government and an efficient democracy. First past the post doesn't provide valid property rights since it is not sufficiently democratic.

Tories are solipsists

"Solipsism (i/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner."

We might think that because government is a false concept in itself that it doesn't matter what type of government we live in... but clearly it is better to be owned by a loving master than a tyrant. Some farm animals live happier lives than others so we can have a view on which type of government we would prefer without being pro-state. Whilst it might be consistent for a true anarchist to have no view on the merits of first-past-the-post versus proportional representation it would be inconsistent for a political party to have no view. This would be the same as a politician being indifferent between a liberal democracy and communism. For a political party (such as the Conservative party) to be indifferent between fptp and pr or even between liberal democracy and communism is for them to make the mistake of solipsism. It is to deny that it itself is a political party because if it is then anarchy is a false notion by their own measure and it is natural to have a view on the merits of different styles of government. If the Conservative party exists then there must be a difference for it between fptp and pr since the government is real and whom gets elected matters and is of consequence. (If there is a difference between fptp and pr then pr is better since more choice leads to more people getting what they want and less of what they don't want.) So then we are left with either pr being objectively preferable or solipsism (for politicians) being true. If solipsism for politicians is true (which it can't be for them because they are a politician) there is no point in them taking a view on which voting system is preferable since there are no political parties and the government doesn't exist. Anti-pr politicians (who prefer fptp) must either deny that they and the universe is real or for some other reason prefer fptp. A 'realist' politician must prefer pr. Tories must think the universe (and themselves) doesn't exist if they are able to think fptp is preferable to pr. A politician who thinks that politics (and the type of voting system in use) doesn't matter must be in self-denial.

Democracy is bad for the government

The problem with any democratic political system is that an assumption of the people being aligned with the government is false. People generally regard the government as a required evil... as they should... which means that when we vote we are more concerned with being able to remove and reject bad and oppressive politicians than we are with being able to promote good politicians. This means that the positive assumption that politicians are good and we must choose the best of them is false. (As is demonstrated by the prevalence of tactical voting.) There is no one outside the politicians and the people so it is a closed system which means that ultimately it is concerned with antagonism. The best political and democratic system is one whereby the people can best express their dissatisfaction with the government. In short... people want to vote negatively (to be left alone) more than they want to vote positively (to get free stuff). So then people want to vote tactically. The nature of the first-past-the-post voting system is often criticised for being tactical but the reality is that it is insufficiently tactical. With a two-party system (as is prevalent where fptp is used) we may vote tactically for one party primarily to keep the other out but we are still voting for one of the major parties which we may not like. Our 'tactical' choice is reduced to the least bad of (only) the main two parties and not the least bad of many parties. So first past the post doesn't offer the same tactical opportunities as is offered by other voting systems. Put simply fptp makes it difficult to remove bad politicians. (Because they may be in both parties.) The reason to have democracy is in case the people do not like the politicians in which case we would want to have the system which best enables the people to remove an oppressive government. First past the post (fptp) is the system which is the least able to do this because it offers the voter the least possible choice. Fptp is the least democratic system and therefore it is the most favourable to politicians and the political class. Politicians don't like democracy but not everything that is liked by politicians is good... the reason to have elections and democracy in the first place is that the political class do not like it and it gives the people a voice. Democracy is a requirement otherwise there will be tyranny. Weak democracy (such as fptp) leads to strong government which is bad.

The voting system is not important

The method by which the members of a political body are elected doesn't matter too much. We might think that there are obvious and stark differences in how a country is governed depending on whether it uses fptp or pr. But in reality there isn't much difference. The only difference the voting system makes is in determining whom gets to state the law. What is more important is the truth of the law itself. If we agree on what the law should be then we can have little valid complaint over whom it is set by. It doesn't matter who sets the law what matters is the nature of the law itself... in which case the voting system used is not important. Only the laws are important. It doesn't matter which form of democracy is used and it doesn't matter if there is a quasi two-party system in place... provided the laws are fair. Voting doesn't alter the truth and so if the government is wrong and it is open to argument then eventually the truth will emerge. First past the post is not good but it is not objectively wrong.

First past the post is a form of tyranny

It is necessary to have a government because otherwise we can never objectively define property rights which are required for a civilisation. Given that government is necessary and government by anything other than the democratic process is tyranny the only remaining question to ask is 'what is the appropriate voting system to use?'. The answer is a form of proportional representation in contrast to a first-past-the-post system. The reason for this is that with pr voters can get the most choice and the most freedom without the requirement to vote tactically. This is good for the same reasons that democracy is good... it prevents tyranny where the powers of the state are abused. If we are the government we have the unique ability to use force legally. This means that we have a significant obligation to make sure we have given the people the maximum possible freedom and in particular the best and most flexible voting system. To be a true and valid government we must give the people the best possible opportunity to remove us and choose the most suitable representatives for themselves. If we are in government we have an obligation to be humble to the electorate and this is only satisfied if we use a proportional (or similar) system. To use fptp is not deferential to the voter and hence is a form of tyranny in itself.

Some people don't like either of the two main parties

There is no point having democracy and letting people vote if they want to be slaves. We give people a vote because they want to be free and democracy enables the people to choose which politicians will give them the most freedom. First-past-the-post systems tend to result in a two-party system. This is so that (due to the fact that) voters make sure their vote is not wasted by voting for a politician who has no chance of winning. If we assume that people vote for the politicians which will give them the most freedom (democracy is freedom) then if a voter votes 'tactically' then their freedom is being compromised. (And tactical voting is evidence of freedom being oppressed.) It might be the case that by chance the voting public splits exactly into two categories in which case the two-party model might be suitable. However it is much more likely that the people would be best reflected and represented by a plethora of disparate parties... with plenty of choice for the voter at the ballot box. When voting behaviour is altered due to the voting system then we know that the freedoms of the people are being compromised... since we assume in a democracy that people want freedom. The people are needlessly being oppressed by the voting system if voting for their naive (instinctive) choice without the consideration of tactical voting results in less democratic influence. If they must vote tactically and are not otherwise inclined to support either of the two main parties in a fptp system then they are being oppressed by the system. Only someone who 'likes' one of the main parties is not being oppressed by the fptp system. Fptp is oppressive if (some) people do not like at least one of the main parties. If neither of the main parties is appealing to some voters then fptp will be reducing freedom overall.

There is nothing wrong with democracy

Society is a good thing and for that reason it is better to have a proportional voting system so that the people can get what they want. If there is a first past the post (fptp) system in place then the political arena will be dominated by just two parties which leads to many problems perhaps best exemplified by cronyism whereby a small group of people control parliament to their own ends. It is not good for the democratic process to be dominated by two political parties because the government is meant to serve the people and by definition the people are not instinctively aligned to a two-party system. The two-party system emerges due to tactical voting and the reality that the political system is not serving the people. It is because the people are frustrated that they must vote for a party they do not like. Fptp frustrates the voter for no good reason. It is good to have a government because then we have an objective system of property rights and an objective law. Anarchy would entail a collection of businesses and charities seeking to impose their interests on everyone else. Whilst this has a naive appeal in the end we need to have an objective system of law which can have only one source (in each country). Otherwise every argument will find no resolution and there will be no peace. Society provides security which means that without it there would be anarchy... without government there are no rules and there can be no civilisation. It is because society (and government) is good that a proportional system of voting is preferable. Whilst fptp does provide some kind of government it is needlessly frustrating to the people because we end up with a two-party oligarchy whereby the interests of the people are easily ignored. Government with democracy is better than unaccountable government so we can say that pr is preferable to fptp. Democracy is bad only if government is bad which it isn't (it is the only source of objective property rights) so democracy is good and fptp is bad for that reason.

First past the post is not liberal

The previous blog argued that 'first past the post can be more liberal than pr' but this is not true and the error can be seen in the sentence "It is sometimes good to force an unpopular liberalism on the people.". Clearly if the people do not want the liberalism being 'imposed' on them then in a fptp system they can easily reject it by voting for the opposition. It is this element of the fptp system which ensures that it is almost always oppressive. If a form of liberalism is being imposed on the people by the centre-right party the people will be able to reject that liberalism at the ballot box which means that fptp is not able to impose liberalism on the people. In fact fptp is detrimental to liberalism because voters will not be able to reject all forms of illiberalism. With fptp voters choose the party which shares their prejudices but also has prejudices of its own. With pr we get only the prejudices of the voting public but with fptp we get those prejudices as well as those of the ruling elite. If we assume (at least) one party in a fptp system attempts to be liberal then this will appeal to liberal voters but if it is in any way illiberal then it will be offensive to those voters who would have nowhere else to go. For liberalism to work in a fptp system requires that (at least) one party is inoffensive to liberals... if they are slightly offensive then liberals will likely vote to exclude them from office. The liberal (centre-right) party needs to be almost perfect not to offend the liberal base. If they are not they will lose votes to the centre-left party. With a proportional system those liberal voters are not 'lost' to an economically socialist centre-left party but instead those votes remain in the centre ground. Fptp forces liberals to vote for a centre-left (socialist) party because if the alternative is not (close to) perfect they will be unelectable to the liberal mind. Fptp sets too high a bar to reach (makes it too difficult) for the centre-right party to attract the support of liberals. It tends to result in centre-left socialism due to the lack of choice.

First past the post can be more liberal than pr

First past the post is not democratic but perhaps that might not be a bad thing. Fptp provides a type of ruling elite whereby there is an establishment but also there is a degree of movement provided by elections. If we have full democracy (proportional representation) then it is possible for all the stupid ideas held by people to be represented in parliament. Fptp ensures that government is controlled only by a self-selecting group. Whilst this has obvious disadvantages (it is helpful to the rich) it also protects the government (and by extension the law) from populism. If we accept that eventually (all) stupid ideas will be rejected then we are left with the truth (in time) which is how we should be governed. (Ideally we should not be governed.) The problem with democracy is that the electorate can be bigoted and superstitious which can lead to despotism and tyranny. It is sometimes good to force an unpopular liberalism on the people. Since we can't force people to accept a bad idea... we can only challenge wrong ideas then arguing will eventually lead to a kind of agreed nihilism. Ignorance is temporary. Since ignorance is temporary and it is unlikely that the ruling elite will be more bigoted and ignorant than the general population then (until everyone gets enlightened) it is better to have a liberal establishment controlling the country... which is what fptp provides. First past the post can be useful in protecting the people from the stupidity of themselves... it guarantees that the people will not be in control of the government (there will not be true democracy) which is good until the people are enlightened... since the ruling elite will always be more liberal than the people at large. Fptp can be helpful in protecting the people from their prejudices.

Proportionality leads to liberalism

First past the post enables the government to ignore the voter because only votes cast for the major parties have an influence. With proportional representation the government is forced to 'listen' to the people because power is allocated directly in accordance to the number of votes. Proportional representation can generally be achieved if there are numerous representatives in each seat. The problem of fptp arises when there is only one winner and so then tactical considerations arise. There is a close analogy between the government and a court of law. In either case legal force is being used. So then if the government has the power of a court judge (over the people) then we can think of an election as the means by which the people are able to refute the accusations of the judge. The people are able to protect themselves from the government with democracy. If there is less democracy (by extension) the people are less able to protect themselves from the false accusations of the government. The people are more vulnerable to the state if there is less democracy which is why democracy leads to liberalism. First past the post is less liberal because it is less democratic. If the government listens to the people as it must do with a more proportional system then there will be less government and more liberalism. Democracy forces the government to listen to the people.