Without proportionality there is no representation

Without proportionality representation has no meaning. We are not represented if our vote is not counted equally with that of other voters. The term ‘proportional representation’ is a tautology because the word ‘proportional’ is redundant. All representation is proportional and so then proportionality is a requirement for a representative democracy. We do not have a representative democracy if there is not a proportional voting system in use.

Valid states use proportional representation

There is no valid government which is not democratic and it is clear that the first-past-the-post system is not democratic. Governments which do not use a fully-proportional system cannot be said to be true and valid governments because they are not democratic. Democracy is not merely a nice thing to have it is a moral imperative and to restrict democracy is to restrict the rights of the people just as other forms of tyranny damage rights. For a state to be democratically accountable is a moral requirement and this means that states which derive their authority from fptp are invalid. Fptp is not a true democratic system and so then for a state to attempt to use this system is a violation of rights. States which use first-past-the-post are violating the rights of their citizens. There is no moral and valid state which uses fptp… to be valid a state can only use a proportional system.

If we need a state then fptp is aggressive

The nature of democracy is that the people are trusted to govern themselves. And so the government will be a reflection of the people… if they are good the government will be good and if they are bad the government will be bad. But since all species are inclined to protect themselves and by definition (relative to ourselves) this is good then we can say that people as a whole are good and that democracies are good. There is no argument against democracy because by definition what the people want is good for them… we cannot question a free choice (since there is no objective virtue). So then democracies are good merely because we cannot know for certain what is best for the people we can only let them (be free to) choose. We do not know better than the people what is good for them. Democracy is objectively good because it enables the people to choose their own leaders (whether or not the people are themselves good… whatever they want is good). There is never a justification to remove choice from people… even ourselves. To give people the most possible choice is a form of morality and so then democracy is moral and first-past-the-post (fptp) is immoral because it is less democratic than proportional representation. We can think of fptp as a form of contextual aggression because we have a requirement for a state (to have property rights) and so then given that we need a state fptp reduces choice and freedom unnecessarily… which is aggression. Fptp is contextually aggressive. We need a state and so then first-past-the-post is aggressive since it reduces the control over the state given to the voter. Proportional representation gives more control to the voter and so then to use anything else is a form of (contextual) aggression. If we need a state then fptp is aggressive.

Overall the people will choose a helpful government

Without government there would be no objective laws and so then the law and property would be determined by force alone. When we have government and a state then we can have courts to decide the law. If there is a state then there must be democracy so then since government is good then so too is democracy good. People will not vote for bad politicians by definition since it makes no sense for people to vote for something which will be harmful to them. The population as a whole will not vote to harm itself even if some small minority of people would like the government to do harm to the people… overall the people will (intend to) choose a helpful government. Unless the people are wrong (and we must assume that they are not… because otherwise that leads nowhere) then democracy is good. Since democracy is good then there is no reason to suppress it and there is no reason to use anything other than a fully-proportional system. To use anything other than full proportional representation is bad because democracy is good and the voters are good. We must assume that the state and the voters are good and so then there is no reason not to have pr… any system which is not proportional must rely on the assumption that either the state or the people are not good which is illogical as far as political science is concerned. We must assume that the people are good otherwise we can get nowhere… to assume otherwise advocates only authoritarianism which is a contradiction. If there is not authoritarianism then there is full democracy which can only mean a proportional system... anything else is either authoritarian or anti-statist.

To have peace and prosperity requires democracy

To have law requires that there is a state because otherwise we have no authority and no rights. Without a state when a crime is committed there is no means to (objectively) determine which party is in the wrong and which has the true claim to ownership of property. Without a state there is anarchy which is chaos and lawlessness because to determine who is the criminal in a dispute requires a third party opinion by definition which then is a state. To have peace and prosperity requires a state and so then it requires democracy. But if we have a first-past-the-post (fptp) system this is not fully democratic because there are systems which are more democratic which are available. To threaten democracy is to threaten the state which is to threaten peace (for the reasons given above) and so then fptp is a threat to peace.

Democracy is peace unless the state itself is always criminal (or if states can exist without democracy) and so then there is no reason to reduce democracy by using a fptp system (to do so reduces peace). If we reject pr then we are rejecting democracy itself which is to reject peace. But since peace and lawfulness are good then to reject pr is to reject something which is good… which is bad. Democracy improves the state because it makes it more accountable which improves the ability of the state to uphold justice.

Proportional representation is an obligation

Perhaps the most obvious and immediate voting system is the first past the post system where members of parliament are simply the candidate with the most votes in each constituency. There is no immediate contradiction with this system… it is only natural that the most popular candidate is elected but we find from experience that it tends to result in a two-party system which is harmful to democracy. If there is only one winner then voters will realise that voting for a lesser-known candidate will be detrimental to their interests because their vote will have no bearing on the outcome… so voters will seek to retain the value of their vote by choosing amongst established candidates. Whilst this system is clearly less democratic than other (proportional) systems there is a certain stability to this arrangement because voters cannot register their displeasure… by definition the system protects the ‘centrist’ parties which are tolerant of the fptp system. Voters cannot easily register their displeasure either at the two main parties or the system. But the state and the voters themselves have an obligation to make sure full democracy is being offered to (other) voters. We have an obligation to make sure we are not participating in or giving a mandate to an undemocratic system and so then we have an obligation to reject first past the post and to support only parties which support proportional representation. We should reject a party which doesn’t support proportional representation for that reason alone irrespective of its other policies. If a party doesn’t support proportional representation that alone should be sufficient for it to be unsuitable for consideration. We should consider only parties which support proportional representation and we have an obligation to reject parties which tolerate or even endorse fptp.

First past the post is temporary

We cannot have freedom without democracy because freedom without a state is impossible due to the absence of property rights and a state without democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. We cannot have freedom without a state and we cannot have freedom without a democratic state. But the first past the post (fptp) system of voting is not entirely democratic and tends to result in a two-party system as a result of the truth of Duverger’s law. Because of this we can say that fptp is not democratic and hence does not deliver as much freedom as is possible because it is like tyranny. To have the most possible freedom (necessarily within the context of a state) is to have proportional representation. If people are using the fptp system they will see that it tends to result in tactical voting and a two-party system but they will not like this naturally… otherwise it would not be called tactical voting. Since people do not like it they will want to change it and more and more people will come to prefer proportional representation and demand it of their elected officials. The fptp system is only temporary and will always be replaced with proportional representation wherever it (fptp) exists. People do not like fptp (by definition) and so then it is temporary and will be replaced.

Democracy is not government

There is a difference between democracy and the state… that is to say that not all states are democratic. This is obvious when we consider one-party dictatorships (in this case we have a state with no elections) but we can also consider states which are fully democratic to be in some sense anarchist and absent. If we have full democracy then we can say to some degree that the people are entirely represented and so then they are autonomous and there is no meaningful ‘state’ to speak of. We generally think of the state as being something separate and apart from the people so then if the people are fully-represented there is no state. We can think of full democracy (direct democracy) as being a form of statelessness. If we have full democracy we do not have a state in the traditional sense.