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.