A proportional voting system is a natural right

Access to government is a natural right which is why we have elections and democracy. To prevent people for no good reason from participating in government and democracy is a crime and so to use any non-proportional voting system is a crime. It is a crime not to use a proportional voting system because this means that people are being excluded from the democratic process for no good reason. We might argue that criminals should not have the right to vote but someone who rejects the populist (fptp) parties is not by definition criminal. We are violating the rights of other people if we vote for and endorse a non-proportional voting system.

Justice is authoritarian

People like to prevent crime but in order to do so we require a government and an authoritarian system of courts. Because justice doesn't work without some kind of authority we can say that justice is authoritarian and statist. And since people like peace and justice any prevention of democracy will lead to less justice because this will mean that the (anti-crime) intentions of the people are thwarted. People are instinctively authoritarian (and statist) and so then any lessening of democracy as with the first past the post system will tend to reduce crime prevention. First past the post (fptp) helps to protect the criminal because it is a threat to democracy and the state. Democracy strengthens the crime-preventing aspects of the state and so then fptp weakens the state in this sense (it might help other aspects of the state).

Only Labour benefit from first past the post

The problem with the first past the post system of voting is that it tends to reduce the amount of viable parties to just two. The reason for this is that voters react to how they expect the rest of the electorate to vote and they end up supporting candidates which are already popular. But this is bad for freedom and it is bad for democracy. Democracy tends to reduce the size of the state (if it doesn't it serves no purpose) and so then if the choice is reduced to just two parties this will be detrimental to freedom.

Liberals on the right tend to prefer freedom and they like democracy but this means that a centre-right party which opposes democracy (and supports first past the post) will be unappealing to liberals who would naturally support such a centre-right party. First past the post makes both of the main parties unappealing to liberals because they support democracy and then by definition oppose fptp. Because liberals will generally reject a party which supports fptp and because (as a rule) both parties in a fptp system support fptp... liberals will be more disenfranchised by fptp than the left. It is the left who do better with fptp because liberals who would tend to be on the right are repulsed by the two-party system and so those votes are lost meaning that the left take power. First past the post is helpful to the left because liberals will reject (both) fptp parties meaning that only non-liberals remain. First past the post is bad for liberalism which means it makes no sense for anyone but a socialist to support it. In a first past the post duopoly there is only one party which truly benefits from the lack of choice and it is the party of the left. There is no benefit to the right to be derived from first past the post... not even for the party of the centre-right (such as the Tories) because their support for fptp will drive liberal voters away... only Labour benefit from first past the post.

Civilisation doesn't work without property rights

To have property rights requires the consent and agreement of other people. It means nothing to have property rights in isolation. If a single person claims to own the world then this is clearly meaningless because other people will disagree... so then property rights are meaningful only in the context of a state or something approximating to a state. And because civilisation doesn't work without property rights then the state is good and necessary. Anarchism (defined by statelessness) is not a valid approach because it yields no property rights so then we must have government and by implication we must have democracy.

But there are two kinds of democracy there is proportional democracy and there is the two-party first-past-the-post system. Because the state is good it makes no sense to deprive people of their democratic rights... it makes no sense to exclude some voters from the democratic process. It is generally voters who support the minority parties who are excluded by first-past-the-post and there is no reason to exclude these voters from government (since government is good). If government is good it is inconsistent for the government to arbitrarily exclude some voters from the government due to their support for a minority party.

Anarchy is a false concept because it does not yield civilisation and property rights and it is for this reason that proportional representation is preferable.

A lack of choice is more consistent with illiberalism

If the left is defined by authoritarianism and specifically economic authoritarianism then it is clear that people who hold this ideology will be less offended at a lack of democratic choice. If the left is illiberal and authoritarian there will be less difficulty for people of the left to vote for the Labour party than for the rest to vote for the Tories. It is more difficult for someone who is anti-authoritarian to vote for the Tories than it is for someone on the left to vote for Labour since a lack of choice is more consistent with economic illiberalism. And it is for this reason that first past the post elections tend to favour the left.

Without democracy we have dictatorship

If anarchy is not possible then we need a government but there are many different kinds of government. Principally governments can either be democratic or undemocratic. If anarchy is impossible then we might think of government as a necessary evil and so then we would want to make it as democratic as possible. For a government to not be democratic is equivalent to a dictatorship which is a crime because it is a form of government which is not democratic. To have a government which is not democratic is similar in nature to slavery in that the people are owned without their permission. At least with democracy the objects of the state (the people) are able to in some sense refuse. They cannot refuse on an individual level but they can refuse collectively which is as much as is possible. Democracy is like a free market in that people can refuse what they are being offered and in contrast dictatorship is like communism in that people cannot refuse. Dictatorship is a crime because (we must assume) government is a requirement and to have less democracy than is possible is a form of slavery since it is through democracy that the people are able to free themselves from the state. Without democracy we have dictatorship which is a form of slavery and a violation of our natural rights and a crime. Dictatorship is a crime because it is possible to have democracy and clearly democracy is more liberal than dictatorship (the people have a choice). Democracy is more liberal than dictatorship and so then we can deduce that dictatorship is a crime.

Proportional representation is good for property rights

Democracy is the means by which the people are able to protect themselves and their property form the state. And so then if there is not sufficient democracy the state will be able to violate the rights of the people. If we assume that property rights are derived from the state then without adequate democracy the people will be subject to violations of their property... which is crime. Democracy protects the people from crime... perpetrated either by the state in the form of communism or by individual criminals. It is the state which we expect to protect us from crime in a democracy and so then if democracy is compromised then so too is our property compromised. Democracy is synonymous with strong property rights and so then the more democratic the state in which we live the better the property rights. If we do not have fully-proportional elections then we do not have the most strong property rights possible. A lack of democracy (such as first past the post) is helpful to criminals either public (the government) or private.

Property rights are synonymous with democracy and so then the most democratic system (proportional representation) will preserve property to the greatest extent. To support the first past the post (fptp) system is to damage democracy and damage property rights.

First past the post is not democratic...

We can only be in government if we have been elected democratically... if we seek to form a government then we must seek (and secure) a mandate from the people. If we do not hold elections and gain a mandate from the people then we are not a government we are a tyrant. To rule people without elections is arrogant tyranny. It is arrogant because we have assumed that the people (who we treat as subjects) are our subjects. We assume that we are the government even though we have held no election. Only with democracy is government valid and so to oppose elections and yet still claim to be a government or to endorse government is authoritarian and arrogant. All governments must be elected democratically. True government is that which is democratic and has a mandate from the people. Government without democracy is tyranny.

Politicians support proportional representation

It makes no sense for a politician or an aspirant politician to support anything other than a proportional voting system. If someone seeks elected office then we can assume they are not an anarchist and that they endorse the validity of the state. A politician is a hypocrite if they claim to be an anarchist so we must assume all politicians are statists and not anarchists. All statists must be in favour of proportional representation because it is the most democratic system available to the legislature and democracy is the only valid form of government. Statists support pr and so then the Tories are being hypocrites (denying their statism) when they claim to support first past the post. Only a hypocrite politician could argue that fptp is a preferable system.

Tories support proportional representation

If we assume that the establishment are fewer in number than can win an election it is apparent that first past the past favours the left. It is a contradiction for the great body of people to vote for the narrow elite and so then fptp will favour populists. Proportional representation in contrast favours no one but the electorate.

People will not vote for the aristocracy and so then it is consistent for everyone on the right to support a fully-democratic system and not fptp. The Tories cannot win with a two-party system because they are perceived as the party of the elite. Since the Tories cannot win with fptp it is important to have proportional representation so that coercive leftists do not gain a monopoly.

Proportional representation is a natural right

If there is a government it has an obligation to use a fair voting system which ensures representation for all voters... which means it must use proportional representation. For a government to fail to use pr is to violate the rights of the people.

The natural rights of the voters have been violated if anything not resembling proportional representation is used.

First past the post is good for no one

There can only be two possible reasons to reject proportional representation in favour of fptp. We can either be of the opinion that (unaccountable) government is good (so we do not want it threatened by democracy) or alternatively we can hold the view that democracy strengthens government and that without democracy to constrain it there would be less government. In the context of choosing between fptp and pr we cannot claim that democracy enhances government because the alternative to pr is not anarchy it is fptp (and fptp does not destroy the government). Fptp is not anarchy so we cannot claim that to reject pr means that there is no government... democracy always provides accountability and reduces government. Since using a fptp system voters still must choose which party they want to win this means that the left can win. Reducing the choice available to simply two parties doesn't encourage liberals to support the Tories. Since (centrist) voters are not coerced into supporting the Tories with a two-party system then fptp can only offend liberal voters which is to the detriment of freedom or be neutral. If voters are generally leftist (and democracy leads to big government) then fptp ensures a Labour victory. If democracy is not synonymous with government then it reduces the government and the only reason to reject it is if we support the Labour party or equivalent.

First past the post can only be harmful because people are not compelled to vote for the Tories in a two party system and it is likely that they will let Labour win. If the people are socialist then fptp will result in a Labour victory and if they are not then we would want to have the most democratic system possible to enable the people to free themselves.

Democracy can never impose freedom on the people... any restriction of choice will lead to bad outcomes because intelligent people are less likely to be willing to be (electorally) coerced into voting tactically so we lose intelligent votes. Nothing can prevent a socialist electorate getting socialism (not even fptp) but forcing liberals to choose between two bad options is harmful. Intelligent people can see that fptp is harmful if the people are liberal but it is not intelligent people who are in control by definition.

The government is unpopular so democracy is good

The oppressive nature of the first past the post voting system must be clearly evident to anyone who has even for a short time examined elections. It is clear that in long-established democracies which use fptp that the system tends to result in the emergence of a two-party system because this maximises the utility of each voter's vote. If someone knowing this still prefers the use of fptp then it can only be because they do not like democracy itself and they wish to (knowingly) oppress voters. Perhaps they think that democracy itself is an invalid concept and that the autocratic government should not be challenged. To know that fptp frustrates the voters and to still endorse it shows that such a person is comfortable to allow the state to reject the views of the people. To accept the truth of Duverger's law and at the same time defend fptp means that such a person is in defence of tyranny. Someone who does not (knowingly) defend tyranny and yet still defends fptp must be in denial of Duverger's law. If someone accepts that fptp tends to result in tactical voting and yet is unperturbed by this fact is someone who is not offended by tyranny. Of all the people who defend fptp it is only those who deny the existence of (the truth of) Duverger's law who are not tyrants. People who defend fptp are tyrants unless they are ignorant of Duverger's law.

Democracy is good and we should have more of it

The government is merely the most powerful collection of people within a geographical area. This means that unless you consider yourself to be part of the government you do not like it. It is for this reason that democracy tends to reduce the size of the state... because most people do not align themselves with the government. So then democracy is the best form of government... there can be no better system (of choosing) because it is the people who most dislike the state... politicians themselves naturally do not dislike the state and so it is only the people (not politicians) who would reject the state.

It is for this reason that a two-party system doesn't serve the interests of the people... because the people do not like the state they want less of it but the smallest of two main parties is still large. The smallest of many parties is much smaller than the smallest of two.

Democracy is the best form of government and its dissemination is to be encouraged wherever there is government and since proportional representation is more democratic than fptp it should be used in preference. It is natural to have a preference for proportional representation because democracy is the means to reduce the size of the state and since more people identify with the people than the politicians democracy reduces the size of the state.

Bad governments use first past the post

The problem with anarchy is that we have no objective means to apprehend criminals. The truly anarchist society would enforce laws via a kind of vigilante system where there is no overall (objective) law-maker. The advantage of government is that no one is more powerful than the government so no one can do a crime against the government (to do so would be a revolution). This means that typical (petty) criminals are not able to exploit their relative power over their victims without being liable for arrest. It is the government which enacts the just law. Since criminal gangs of some kind can be expected to arise in anarchist systems we can see that they are never free from crime and warlordism. Since government prevents warlordism it is good... and if government is good then it is consistent that it use the most democratic system available to it. Since the government is good it would be perverse for it to oppress the people with an undemocratic voting system. It is consistent for the government to use proportional representation since the government is good. We do not have a right to be a government and exclude voters from power using first past the post. Government has no right to use fptp it must use some form of proportional representation.

First past the post is offensive

The nature of property rights is that they are antagonistic. Where there is a property dispute there will be opposing sides who each claim to own a piece of property. If people agree on the correct ownership of property there is no dispute of course. If the role of government is at least in part concerned with arranging the internal property of a country (and not only concerned with external affairs) then we see why proportional representation is favourable. Without proportional representation (pr) elections will tend to devolve into a two-party system which doesn't allow people to truly express their view on internal property. If both of the main parties are incorrect in their assessment of particular property claims then there will be no form of redress available to the voter. If there is proportional representation then property claims of many different types can be reflected in parliament.

Crime is invisible if it is not recognised by at least one of the two main parties in a fptp system. Democracy is a tool against crime and if we have the fullest expression of democracy then we will have the least amount of crime. People do not like crime but if there is insufficient democracy available to the people then the government will often fail to apprehend the criminals and they will go free. Democracy enables the people to reject crime but if there is not enough democracy this mechanism is oppressed.

People like freedom because it is the opposite of crime so then if we oppress democracy we oppress freedom.