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.