Proportional representation is fair representation

For law to be valid the legal system needs some central authority to which to defer... this doesn't mean the legal system is necessarily aggressive or authoritarian in nature merely that there needs to be some arbiter of truth. In the past this has been provided by monarchs and now it is generally the government chosen by the people in a democracy. Without a government there can be no valid law because there is nothing to determine (objective) truth.

The problem with first past the post is that even though there is a democracy which should unite the people... the fptp system divides the electorate into two separate parts for no reason. There is no advantage to the few-winner first past the post system. There is no reason to restrict the number of winners in each constituency to only a small number. We can have multiple-member constituencies. It is unusual to restrict the choice available to voters in this way (to use fptp) and so then it is normal to have a more proportional system. Proportionality in representation is fair and so we can describe proportional representation as fair representation. It is reasonable to describe 'proportional representation' as fair representation and this more accurately defines the distinction between the two systems. It is because proportionality is fair that adherents advocate it and so there is no reason not to describe pr as fair representation.

First past the post is a form of democracy

If there is a government then democracy is the most liberal possible arrangement. Politicians must respect the wishes of the people even if the people appear to be communist in the eyes of the politicians. If the people have voted for communism there is nothing that can be done about it. We cannot protect ourselves from democracy (democracy does not harm us) because if democracy is liberal there is no threat and if it is communist the people themselves are communist and to have no democracy is no improvement.

There is nothing better than democracy if there is a state so then it is not possible to impose liberalism on the people.

Proportional representation is good for the people

The purpose of democracy is to give power to the people because it is preferable that power it taken from the state and given to the people. If too much power rests in the hands of the state then full communism results which ends with starvation and poverty. Since there is either government or the electorate (and no third status of people exists) then what gives power to the state must take it from the voters. If the voters are enfranchised then the state is not. If first-past-the-post is good for the state (which it is) then it is bad for the people since there is no other entity (the middle is excluded). All democracy is good for the people and bad for the state which is why proportional representation is better for the people than fptp... due to it being inherently more democratic. Proportional representation is more democratic than fptp because it enables voters to be represented by someone who much more closely matches their views and interests. And so pr is better for the people.

First past the post is a form of oppression

There is no government which is not democratic... that is to say that if a 'government' has failed to hold valid elections then it cannot claim to be a government. Since the first-past-the-post method of electing officials is not proportional and excludes minority parties then it is not democratic and no organisation using (only) this system can claim to be official. No valid government uses fptp alone. Only governments which use a fully-proportional system are valid. There is no government which is not proportionally elected.

Fptp is anarchy in the same sense that totalitarian communism is anarchy because it is invalid and chaotic.

Democracy is less absurd than the use of first-past-the-post.

No one has a right to use first past the post

The problem with the fptp system is that voters are denied what is their natural right... which is to be respected as a voter. If it is a necessity to have a government then it must naturally be democratic and further it must not be susceptible to Duverger's law ("plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system"). If the voting system is susceptible to Duverger's law (as all single-winner elections are) then the natural democratic rights of the people have been denied. We have a right to be free from Duverger-susceptibility and so we have a right for the government not to use first past the post.

It is not true to say that the government and politicians necessarily know what is best for the country... this is why we have elections. It is the people in a democracy who know what is best and it is they who must take precedence but with fptp the voter doesn't take precedence as they should.

First past the post is anarchy which is good

The advantage of a first past the post system is that it makes the problem of government obvious to everyone. If government is a valid concept then it would not lead to tactical voting because all forms of government would be acceptable and non-threatening. The prevalence of tactical voting (under fptp) shows that people not only dislike the main parties but also that they dislike the government itself. If government is to be valid it must be democratic and so then it must use proportional representation and if pr is not in use then the government is invalid. So then pr legitimises government more than first past the post... which is good only if we want to legitimise the government. If we do not want to legitimise the government then there is no reason to have pr and there are reasons to have fptp.. because it frustrates voters. There can be no valid government without pr so fptp provides no valid government and is to be welcomed.

First past the post is preferable because it invalidates government itself. There is anarchy if fptp is in use which is why fptp is a good system.

Democracy helps to reduce government crime

If crimes are to be prevented then there must be a government to arrest criminals. Generally criminals are bad people who do not stop unless they are confronted by force and when we use force to stop a criminal we are being a state. Because of the categorical imperative we must 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction'. That being the case no one can be a criminal and there must be a state to remove criminals from society. We can assume that without punishment (exclusion) criminals will continue to be criminals so we need a state to prevent crime. And to prevent crimes of the state we need a democracy so that we can protect ourselves from state theft and slavery. We need the state to protect us from individual criminals and we need democracy to protect us from crimes enacted by the state itself. If there is less democracy (fptp) then the state will be able to do more crimes than otherwise. If there is a less democratic system such as fptp then government crime (communism) will be easier to enact. The government will find it easier to enact its criminal communist programs if there is not a sufficiently democratic system in place.

Proportional representation helps to reduce communism because it helps to reduce government crime.

Fptp is a subsidy which should not be used

There can be no government which uses first past the post because without using the most democratic system the government has no legitimacy. First past the post is not as democratic as it could be and so the government has no right to use it and a government which does use it has no right to exist. Only governments which use proportional representation (or a similarly representative system (assumed to be synonymous in all further discussion here)) have a right to exist. If proportional representation is not in use then the voter has a right to claim that they are not represented and hence that the government is illegitimate. If the government is good it will not use first past the post and so (since government is good) governments can only use pr. The only reason for a government or a political party to use first past the post is the fear of losing power due to the loss of tactical votes... which means the loss of power due to the use of a more fair system. So the only motivation to use fptp is malign. Parties which use and advocate fptp are doing so only for their own interests and in the case of governments this is illegitimate (the only reason to have a government is for good reasons). Only bad politicians would knowingly use fptp and since all politicians are good or useless then politicians cannot use fptp. Fptp gives an advantage to the big parties for which there is no justification and so it should not be used.

Without pr there is no government

First past the post is based on a false concept because we own our own vote which means that all votes must be treated equally and pr must be used. If there is not a form of proportional representation in place then the votes have not been respected equally and a crime has been committed. To not use pr or a system similar to it is a crime.

Dictatorship is aggressive

First past the post is aggressive because we have a right to choose who we are represented by. We have a right to direct representation and as such we have a right to be free of first-past-the-post. We have a right to not have first-past-the-post imposed upon us because it is a form of aggression because the government defines what is and isn't a crime. If we do not have true democracy then the government is a criminal tyranny and aggressive. The government is not aggressive (by definition) if it is democratic... democracy is never aggressive. Governments that do not use proportional representation or its equivalent are being aggressive since to be a government without democracy (a mandate) is a crime. The mandate for the government is derived from a fair voting system only so anyone who claims to be the state without having used a fair system is lying. There is no government without pr. Government is force and force has no right to exist if it is not sanctioned and approved by the community so the government cannot exist without democracy.

Democracy is a natural right

Government is required for property rights and the objective rejection of crime but it must be owned and controlled by the people. If the government uses proportional representation then we have a democracy but otherwise we do not. There can be no democracy without proportional representation or something like it... if we have first-past-the-post and must vote tactically then we do not have a democracy. If we do not have a democracy then we have anarchy because no state is valid without elections. There is no valid form of government that is not a democracy. Democracy is required for a valid government but if the government uses only fptp then it is not valid. The only form of valid elections are proportional elections (fptp elections are invalid). Democracy must be proportional... we don't have a democracy if we are using first-past-the-post.

First past the post is undemocratic

The only means to be free from the state is to have democracy and so then we can deduce that democracy is fundamentally liberal. Since statelessness is impossible (there would be no property rights) then freedom requires democracy and any suppression of democracy is fundamentally illiberal. That which is not liberal is a crime because we own ourselves so fptp is a crime. If we own ourselves then we own part of the government (democracy is true) and any attempt to stifle democracy (as with fptp) is a violation of our right to be part of the government. First past the post (fptp) excludes people from government which is a violation of their rights and a crime.

Choice is a natural right

In a liberal society we have a right to do everything which is not a crime so then we have a right to use proportional representation. (And to oppose this right is a crime.) To use anything other than proportional representation (pr) such as (to use) first-past-the-post is a crime because it reduces choice for the voter. If we reduce the choice of other people this is a crime and fptp reduces choice. To reduce choice is a crime which means that a voting system which encourages people to vote tactically in order to make sure their vote is not wasted is a crime since the choice of the voter has been reduced. The two-party fptp system reduces choice for the voter and for that reason it is a crime.

First past the post is sufficiently democratic

For there to be a state requires that there is a democracy... if there is no election there is no valid government. To have a government with no election is a form of arbitrary rule which is invalid... it is the democratic process which gives the state its mandate. There can be no state without democracy. But it cannot be said that the first-past-the-post system is not democratic. It is clearly true that elections have taken place even if the outcome is not proportional. So then a fptp election is enough to establish a state. Since the state is valid if it has used fptp then to argue for more democracy is only to complain about preferences... the fundamental requirement of democracy has been satisfied and it is for this reason that arguments for pr are often ignored. It is enough that the state has been elected with some democracy.

First past the post is a crime

Governments are always proportional and to have a government elected by any less democratic means is a crime. So to use the first-past-the-post system to elect a government is a crime because the government elected will be illegitimate. (Governments without legitimacy are criminal.) The only valid system of democracy and by extension government is one where the voters have a true choice and are represented by someone who reflects their views. Only direct democracy is valid and proportional representation is a form of direct democracy because the representatives are very closely aligned to the voters. There is more choice with pr and so the views of the voters will be properly reflected by the chosen politician. People who advocate fptp are advocating a crime.

Pr is a natural right if there are more than two people

Since we are not alone in the world and other people exist then it is natural to have a government and further it is natural to have a democracy. No state can be valid if it does not have a mandate from the people which is derived from democracy. All states must be democratic and if there are more than two people in the world then it is a requirement to have a state... otherwise property rights will be determined by force alone.

If there are only two people then it can be assumed that each will vote for themselves and there is no need for (government and) democracy. It is when there are more than two people that a state can be valid and the majority can protect themselves from the aggression of the minority.

If there are more than two people it is natural and preferable to have a democratic government so that property rights are determined by consensus and not theft. It is a natural right to form a government if it is democratic and by extension full democracy is a natural right. (We have no right to form a state without democracy.) We do not have full democracy if we must vote tactically as with first-past-the-post and so pr is a natural right. Proportional representation is a natural right because whilst we have a right to form a democratic government we do not have a right to oppress democracy. Since we do not have a right to oppress democracy (and yet we have a right to form a government) then pr is a natural right.

None of the above is inconsistent with the non-aggression principle.