First past the post is torture

We can define torture in this context to mean harm imposed on someone by the state for no reason. It is different from the normal execution of justice. Torture by the government is imposed arbitrarily.

First past the post is a form of torture because it fails to grant us the full expression of our political views in a democracy. There is no reason to stifle democracy and so then we should have the most democratic system possible. To reduce democracy is to reduce the freedom of the people in favour of the state and since there is no reason to do this (and a lack of freedom is punishment) we conclude that fptp is torture.

Tyrannical statists don't like democracy

If the majority of people want peace then the elected government will reflect this and those who want aggression will be powerless against the government. If most people want war then (elected) government will be bad but then so too will anarchy be bad. Democracy is always an improvement on its absence.

Clearly proportional representation is more 'democratic' than first past the post because the voters are not motivated to vote tactically. Pr is like having direct democracy for each issue because the voters are able to be represented by someone who very closely matches their views. If we concede that pr is more democratic than first past the post then it is more like (legitimate) government than fptp which then is more like anarchy. But since democratic government is always better than anarchy (for reasons given above) then pr is always preferable to fptp. Pr is better than fptp for the same reasons that elected government (and democracy) is better than anarchy. (If democracy (the ability to refuse government) is not better than anarchy then there might be arguments for fptp over pr.) Only someone wanting to use the government for unpopular and illiberal reasons would object to more democracy. If people want a government there will be one so the best approach to prevent tyranny is to make sure that those who oppose the government are powerful which means to have the most democratic system possible. People neglected by a lack of democracy are always dissidents of the government... only (tyrannical) loyalists to the state want less democracy.

People want to be free

Few governments claim that their actions are intentionally malicious so then we can deduce that all of the crimes committed by governments have been done in the name of communism and socialism. The government is synonymous with socialism. The purpose of democracy is to reduce the size of the state so then democracy is antagonistic to the government and to communism. Democracy is bad for communism and socialism because it enables the people to have a veto on what is being done in their name and (purportedly) for their interests. The government will always claim to be socialist and acting for the good of the people and the 'country' so then even if it is actively engaged in the extermination of the population this will be defended by the government on the grounds of socialism. Democracy is the only protection available to the people against this kind of socialism. Since pr is more democratic than fptp we can say that pr reduces socialism much more than fptp. Pr is bad for socialism. If voters are forced to choose the least bad of just two political parties then they have been given less democracy (and less protection from socialism) than with pr.

First past the post anarchists lack empathy

Anarchists do not want a government so it is more difficult for them to differentiate between different forms of tyranny and they will be less sensitive to pleas for a more lenient government... perhaps interpreting these as advocacy for the government. For example someone who wants democracy instead of dictatorship is clearly someone who dislikes the present government and can be thought of as a liberal. But the anarchist (unless they are sympathetic to the claims of the democrat) might be deaf to the desire for democracy over tyranny because they want neither. An empathetic anarchist might be sympathetic to the desires of the democrat and might even advocate democracy in these circumstances despite being an anarchist... since to get some freedom from the state now is better than none even if it is not full anarchy. To advocate (more) democracy is not to advocate the state and so anarchists might advocate (for example) proportional representation over first past the post. An unempathic anarchist might well be indifferent between pr and fptp merely because they cannot see things from the point of view of the democratic rebel. It is consistent for anarchists to prefer pr over fptp but it is perfectly possible for a genuine anarchist not to be able to see that pr is preferable (since they are not able to empathise with the reformers). If anarchists have no empathy it is possible that they will not be able to see how pr is better than fptp.

First past the post is authoritarian

With a proportional voting system voters are able to put much more 'information' into the system. They are better able to express what they like and don't like. They are better able to expose the government (and as a consequence everyone) to the reality of their opinions. With fptp reality is delayed because the two-party system makes it easy for the state to ignore its voters. With pr the state must be much more responsive to the people. Since reality is inherently libertarian and people want to be left alone more than they want to be protected more democracy will lead to more freedom. First past the post suppresses freedom because it enables the state to assume authority where it is not wanted. Proportional representation makes it easier for the people to reject the government. Coercion and authoritarianism are bad so if people are better able to reject these things this is good. A lack of democracy makes bad things easier (and freedom less likely).

First past the post is bad for the poor

We know that if banks can inflate the currency this will be bad for the poor because only those with access to banking services will be able to get the benefit of the new money. So then the poor will want to remove deposit insurance from the banking industry but to do so requires the consent of legislators who are (apparently) predisposed to subsidise the banks. The only way to remove pro-bank legislators from office is via elections but if we have a two-party system this becomes almost impossible and so we are left with a subsidised banking system which can print money. To prevent bank inflation requires full democracy. If we do not have pr then banks will continue to be able to print money which means that the poor will continue to be disenfranchised by the state-subsidised banking system. First past the post is bad for the poor because it enables the banks to retain deposit insurance.

Voters are innocent (and should be respected)

If democracy is good then more democracy is better than some democracy. Since few argue that proportional representation is less democratic than fptp then we can deduce that arguments against reform of the system from fptp to pr are arguments against democracy. Democracy is good because the people are good. If the people are not good then there might be a case for some kind of enlightened authoritarianism but we immediately face the problem of choosing the leaders. We can think of direct democracy as a kind of anarchist democracy because the people represent themselves. If democracy is bad there should be no democracy and no government... if democracy is good then there should be as much of it as possible. We do not need to be concerned that full democracy will reduce the talent of legislators to that of the average person since people are able to deduce skill even if they do not posses that skill themselves. (And there are fewer legislators than voters.) There is no reason to keep fptp since there is no reason to oppose a more democratic government... government derives its legitimacy from the voters and so the voters should always be respected by the government. Voters should be favoured over politicians. Democracy and proportional representation is good for the people and so it is objectively good in the context of government since the government is designed to serve the people alone. The purpose of government is not to punish the people but to liberate them and so we should have pr over fptp.

First past the post is bad for everyone

It is a myth to assume that the first past the post system is helpful to Tory voters. Whilst their party might pick up some tactical votes using fptp they will not get as many as Labour (for reasons given shortly) and losing to Labour is never good for the interests of Tory voters even if their party gets tactical votes. What is good for Tory voters is not always good for their party. In fact we could argue that what is good for their party is not good for them (Tory voters) since to live in a two-party system is illiberal. The success of the Tory party (via fptp) hurts everyone including their voters. The voters do not need the party... only the policies of the party and so what helps the party is not always good for their voters.

The reason Labour get more tactical votes than the Tory party is that liberals are less inclined to vote for one of the large parties... and since liberals would oppose economic socialism this means that non-Labour votes are lost in a two-party system because they do not necessarily go to the Tories. It is less burdensome for the left to vote for a single party than it is for people on the right who are more distrustful of collectivism generally. People who oppose socialism will be less likely to vote tactically to make sure the opposition are kept out.

First past the post hurts Tories because it favours the left which means their policies will be enacted. Only if their supporters identified more with the party than their policies would fptp be good for the Tories... it is not good for Tories because Tories care more about policies than the particular party in power.

First past the post is bad for Tories unless they care more about their party than policies.

Fptp cannot be used because no one owns elections

We know that 'he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all' but in the case of democratic systems everyone is involved. We cannot take more than our fair share without unfairly prejudicing other people. Since everyone is involved in the outcome of elections then the democratic process can be considered to be a shared property like land. In a sense we can think of the democratic system as being part of the commons and as such it is the property of everyone not just a few. Since elections belong to everyone then no one can own the democratic process but if we do not use a proportional system then this is helpful to some and unhelpful to others. Then this use of a non-proportional system would help some and not others which is an invalid use of the commons. Since the commons is owned by all then we must use a fair (and hence proportional) system. No one owns elections and democracy which means we must make sure the political process doesn't favour some and not others... to have anything other than a fair and equal voting process is a violation of the non-ownership of elections. No one owns elections which means they must be fair. To have unfair elections indicates that the electoral process is 'owned' by some people which is invalid. Ownership of elections invalid so first past the post is invalid. We do not own elections and so we cannot use first past the post.

Fptp is aggressive because it violates vote-ownership

We own our own vote and this means that no one but ourselves has the right to cast our vote for us. We have a vote each. The first past the post voting system tends to ignore this principle instead placing the power of the legislature in the hands to the two leading parties. This a result of the people trying to maximise the impact of their vote when there is only one winner. We own our own vote in the same sense that we own our own person. Other people do not have a right to control your person and they have no right to control your vote...as they do to some extent with the fptp system. With the fptp system the votes of the people are controlled to some degree by the leading parties because a vote for any of the smaller parties will be a wasted vote. To some degree we have no vote if we are only able to choose from between two parties. Physical aggression violates self-ownership and the first past the post system violates vote-ownership... that is to say that just as we own ourselves so too do we own our own vote. Fptp violates this vote-ownership and is a form of (democratic) aggression.

A lack of pr is uncivilised

The problem with anarchy is that there will always be someone willing to claim property which is not theirs... and since we cannot objectively deduce what is owned by whom then we can see that an anarchist society is unworkable. In fact an anarchist society is an oxymoron because if there is a society there is a state of some kind whether it is recognised or not. If there is no state then all of the property will fall into the hands of those people willing and capable to claim it. The state protects the people from criminals. So then if we must have a state we can say that the state has certain obligations unlike other public agents. In general life we do not have an obligation to each other other than to leave each other alone... we never have a debt to society. But since we require a state to have rights above those of normal people then we can also ascribe to the state extra responsibilities. And clearly one of these is that it is democratic (which is satisfied by fptp). We can further say that the state has a responsibility to be as democratic as possible (which is not satisfied by the first past the post system). It is perfectly consistent to say that the state has a responsibility and a duty to hold proportional elections just as it has a duty to hold elections. We can say that the people have a right to fair and proportional elections just as they have a right to elections. Just as a state without a democratic mandate is invalid so too is a state without a proportionally elected legislature. A lack of proportionality is an affront (to civilisation) just as a lack of democracy is an affront.

First past the post is an anarchist system

If we are an anarchist then we take the view that nothing the government does is good. This means that it would not be a surprise for us to discover that the government uses an unfair voting system. An anarchist would expect the government to cheat at elections even abolishing them if possible. Since it has been established that the first-past-the-post system of voting isn't fair to all voters then someone who supports the government and thinks they are fair would be shocked and surprised (to find that the government use it). But an anarchist is not surprised that the government uses an unfair system of voting. In many ways we can think of the presence of fptp as being a strong physical confirmation of the malice of the state. If the state is good it would use pr so then since pr is not in use we can deduce that the state is evil. The fptp system is consistent with the state being evil.