First past the post is a form of anarchy

Most governments use democracy… that is to say that they derive their mandate from the electorate. A private club has no need to be accountable to the outside world and as such they are under no obligation to use democracy. But an anarchist would argue that a government has no authority above that of a private individual or club… that there is nothing special about a government. If governments are not special there is no reason for them to use democracy. If the state has a special obligation to the people then it is natural that it use democracy and furthermore we can argue that it should use a proportional system… but since governments are not special there is no such obligation. There is no reason to replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation because no government is valid whether elected or not and anarchy is true. The government is perfectly entitled to use first-past-the-post or whatever voting system it likes (including no voting system at all) because there is nothing special about the government. A private club may use fptp and so too the government can use fptp because there is nothing special about the government and it is not above the law even if it is popular and democratically elected.

First past the post is either neutral or bad

It is natural for the state to be democratically accountable because the purpose of the state is to serve the people. If democracy is bad for the state then the state is bad for the people. First past the post is less democratic than proportional representation which means that it might be protecting an unpopular state and since all states must be popular (democratic) to be valid it might be protecting an invalid state. First past the post might be protecting a bad state from the wishes of the people… the government might be different under proportional representation (than what it is with fptp). If there might be a different government with a proportional system then fptp is protecting a bad and invalid state and so then fptp itself is bad. Democracy is good if the state is unpopular and bad (we assume the people know their own interests) and if the state is popular then democracy will have no influence on it. Only non-democratic states can be bad. First past the post might be bad but states elected with proportional representation are never bad since they are accountable. Proportional representation is a guarantee that the state is not bad (otherwise democracy is a false concept). There is no reason for a good state (a popular state) to oppose proportional representation. People know what is in their own interests (otherwise democracy itself is false) which means that people like freedom and so then the more democratic the system in use the smaller the state will be. If first past the post is relevant it (only) protects socialism. It is impossible for fptp to protect freedom unless democracy is bad for freedom and the state is liberal (but if the state is liberal there is no need for democracy). Democracy is not bad for freedom and so then fptp is not liberal… although it might be neutral.

Proportional representation is logical

The nature of democracy is that the people are given ownership of the government via elections… but if the voting system does not make sure to provide proportional representation then this is not full democracy. If we cannot simply vote for our preferred candidate and expect to receive equal representation then voters will be motivated to vote tactically which means some candidates are favoured over others merely for being established which is to the detriment of democracy. If there is a government then to have democracy is a natural right and our natural rights have been violated if we do not have true democracy which is proportional democracy. Non-proportional democracy (such as first-past-the-post) is a violation of our natural rights and as such it is a form of slavery. It is the ownership of our votes by the (two) established parties. But since slavery is an inherently false concept (we cannot own people) then so too fptp is a false concept and it is a voting system which has no legitimacy. So (just as slavery doesn’t exist in a just world) first-past-the-post doesn’t exist in a just world and democracy cannot exist if it is not proportional. The purpose of democracy is to liberate the people and if we do not have proportional representation then the people are given less freedom than is possible for no justifiable reason (which contradicts the liberal assumptions of democracy). First-past-the-post is inconsistent with democracy. We own our own votes which means the only valid system is proportional representation.

Democracy is the truth

Democracy is good but the first-past-the-post system gives power to the state without it being democratic which means it gives illegitimate and tyrannical power to the state. Fptp insulates the state from the opinions of the people (which delays freedom). The state is absurd but it is not able to learn this since without democracy it will remain in place… people cannot easily reject the state if it not democratic which means that it remains ignorant and arrogant. The purpose of democracy is to enable the state to be answerable to the people but fptp restricts this process meaning that it remains ignorant. Democracy can awaken the government but fptp enables the state to remain asleep. With fptp the people can’t wake up the government because their votes don’t matter. First-past-the-post is a way for the state to switch off democracy and to be unanswerable to the people. But the power ultimately rests with the people so it is best for the state if it uses a more democratic system so that it is more accountable. It is better to know in advance if we are not doing a good job for our employers because otherwise we will be shocked when we are replaced. Fptp is a way for the state to stifle reality for a limited period of time (and slow down the progress of freedom). Eventually the people will get the freedom they want whether through fptp or otherwise… not even fptp can stop the truth.

If democracy is bad then there should be no elections

If democracy is a true concept then the people should be given the power of the state and the state is answerable to the people. This means that there is no ‘elite’ and everyone has equal access to the power of the state. If democracy is the right approach then is it natural to have proportional representation because this gives each voter equal power (which is an assumption of democracy). If we should not have equal power and there should be an elite of legislators then democracy is wrong and there should be no elections. The first-past-the-post system which can be seen as partial democracy is inconsistent because if democracy is bad (and there should be an authoritarian elite) then there should be no elections at all… not even two-party elections. If democracy is true then only proportional representation makes sense. But if there is a state then it should be owned by the people (democracy is true) because for the state to be valid it must be beneficial to the people and in which case democracy will not be a threat to it. If the state is good then democracy is true (and good) which means that it is consistent to have pr. If unaccountable power is bad then pr is the only valid system and fptp is not valid. First-past-the-post is a rejection of (valid) accountability. There is no reason to subsidise a government elite (as fptp does) which means that there is no reason to have fptp and we should (to be free) have pr. Democracy is freedom unless the alternative is to have no state at all but since the alternative to pr is (generally) fptp and not anarchy then pr is freedom. Only if freedom is bad is fptp preferable to pr.

The state is generally unpopular

We can associate the state with a lack of democracy since if people have full democracy there will be less state. People never demand democracy in order to expand the state… always to demonstrate the lack of popularity of the state and then to reduce it. The state is justified only if it is popular and democracy demonstrates the popularity or otherwise of the state. If the state is popular and democratic then we can have no problem with it but if it is not democratic (and unpopular) then it is bad… democracy ensures the state is never unpopular which means that it is never unjustified. We cannot complain if the state is popular which means that we can have no complaint if the state is fully democratic. Democracy ensures the popularity of the state. Good states do not mind democracy… only bad states object to elections. Democracy tends to reduce the size of the state because socialism is (almost) always state spending which tends to benefit most the people who get to spend the money first. The state is generally unpopular which means that democracy (and proportional representation) tends to reduce the size of the state. The state doesn't like democracy (a popular state is a small state) which means that it tends to prefer first past the post to proportional representation. Democracy is popular (unlike the state).

There is never a reason to defer to the state

Whilst democracy is a requirement to have a valid state this does not mean that democracy justifies the state. Democracy is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of a valid state… which is to say that the state is never justified. We can know this because no good action requires the justification of it being committed by the state. If we seek to do good or to use force in a defensive way there is never a reason to defer to the state. All good actions can happen within the context of a stateless society and if the state is required to justify the action then we know that the action is wrong.

The state is never justified whether it uses democracy or not.

Democracy is a requirement to have a valid state

It is difficult to get democracy from a state that doesn't want to give it to you because by definition you have no power. For a state to allow or extend democracy means that it is giving up power for no other reason than to let other people have power. This is an entirely selfless act assuming the power of the state is not being threatened by a lack of democracy. If the state and the members of the state are unthreatened then it is unlikely that it will give up power by extending the franchise of democracy. A lack of democracy is by definition socialist because it means the people have less ability to curtail the extent of the state but there is no inconsistency... it is perfectly consistent for the state to be entirely undemocratic. In this scenario we are reduced merely to a simple power-struggle. If an autonomous individual declares themselves to be the true state in contrast to the established state then they will be shown to be wrong when they are overwhelmed by the power of the (established) state. So then when the state is undemocratic there is no rhetorical argument to be made in favour of democracy all we can do is to appeal to the wisdom of the legislature and if that fails we hope that the (undemocratic) state falls through being overwhelmed. Only power can establish democracy and so then there is no solid argument to be made in favour of proportional representation and against the first-past-the-post system.

First past the post is not majoritarian

In most democratic systems to pass a law requires at least half of the legislature to support the proposal. And if the electoral system is proportional then this means that at least half of the voting population support the new law. But if the voting system is not entirely proportional it is possible for laws to be made and passed by parties which did not receive a majority of the vote. In the first past the post system (fptp) each seat is won by the party which receives the most number of votes… but this might not be a majority merely a plurality. So then we can have the government controlled by a minority party not by a coalition of parties which amounts to more than half of the electorate. In this way fptp is a kind of rule by minority since generally the winning party doesn’t get more than half of the votes. The fptp system subsidies the two largest parties such that even though they have only a minority of votes (not more than half) they are able to form a government without the need for a coalition. This form of subsidy is inappropriate since there is no reason to reject a system whereby leading parties must seek to form a coalition before they are able to pass laws. There is nothing wrong with a system of proportional representation which works very well in many countries and so then there is no reason to subsidise minority parties which do not have enough votes to form a government on their own. There is nothing in particular to be admired in single-party government. Democracy by its nature is a majoritarian concept… meaning that to have control of parliament generally requires more than half of the votes. There is nothing wrong with majoritarian democracy and there is no reason to subsidise any party (even a large one). First past the post is not majoritarian and so then it is not entirely democratic.