If there is less democracy then there is more poverty

It is clear that some policies carried out by the government are helpful for the poor, but if there is a two-party system in place then both might not offer those policies.

The common argument against the first-past-the-post voting system is that it results in tactical voting which means that voters must compromise their preferences to ensure their vote matters. If both of the main parties deny good policies to the poor then voters (who want to support the poor) at left choosing between two parties neither of which support the poor. They must merely choose the least bad of the main parties.

An example of a policy which might help the poor is a Universal Citizen's Dividend which would be a fixed amount of money given to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. This is something which would naturally be beneficial to the poor but in a fptp system (for whatever reason) it is rare that either of the main parties support this policy so even if (most) people want it, it will not happen.

Since democracy helps the poor in a positive sense then any oppression of democracy (such as first-past-the-post) is oppressive to the poor, naturally. To oppress democracy is to oppress the poor.

Government is not democratic

To be politically right-wing doesn't really mean anything because it doesn't express a political opinion. To be left-wing is well-defined because we know that it entails a big state and public property. We also know that liberalism is well-defined because that means to have significant private property and economic freedom, so a better axis would be liberal-communism than left-right.

It can be said that the (political) right is a subset of the left so then there is no such thing as the right, it is a myth and a cult. The right is a cult because they deny the reality of democracy, particularly in respect of the first-past-the-post system and proportional representation. The right is a cult because it denies the logic of true and direct (proportional) democratic representation.

First past the post is communism or treason

As far as the state and democracy is concerned we should ask ourselves whether the government is popular, if government is itself a good thing and if the people are discerning.

If government is a good thing and the people are discerning then people will want as much of it as possible and democracy will lead to communism but if government is (overall) bad then the discerning people will vote for liberalism. So when people defend a lack of democracy and advocate first-past-the-post (and if they are liberals) then either they do not trust the people (to be as liberally discerning as they are) or they want big government despite being liberals because they do not have the interests of the country at the front of their mind... they are either traitors (who know that liberalism is good but want to impose communism on the country) or they think the voters are less liberal than they are.

If we assume the voters aren't stupid and have the same opinion of government as the people deciding which voting system to use then liberals would choose a liberal system (pr) unless they want bad things for the country and communists would not want to give the voters as much choice because democracy is bad for the state. Only a loyal communist or a treasonous liberal would want less democracy than is possible (knowing that democracy weakens the state). If you do not want the state to be weakened by democracy then either you are a communist (who likes your country) or you are a liberal who wants bad things to happen to the country.

Democracy is bad and first-past-the-post is good for (loyal) communists and treasonous liberals (who know that communism is bad). A lack of democracy will result in communism so the people who support this must either be communists themselves or people who know that (state) communism doesn't work but want the nation to do badly.

People who oppose democracy (for their own country) are either communists or traitors. If first-past-the-post is not communist it is treasonous.

All democracy is proportional

The purpose of a democracy is to enable the people to protect themselves from the state by choosing their representatives. In a sense democracy is similar to anarchy in that there is no outright leader and people rule themselves by voting. If everyone is perfectly represented then this provides the most freedom. If people vote directly on laws (as in a referendum) then in effect there is no state because there is nothing between the people and the laws.

It is only if there is a body of people who stand in the way of the people that there is a state in the truest sense.

The government is not popular

Democracy is the mechanism by which we fix our political problems and by definition, we are not able to fix a democratic system that does't work.

The government that uses first-past-the-post claims that it is democratic and gives the state a mandate to rule. If the government doesn't use democracy then it is illegitimate and tyrannical but if some form of democracy is used then it is valid. So fptp serves as an alibi for the state to defend itself against accusations of non-democracy and tyranny. But it is not democratic and so the state is using a false alibi. The problem we have with this is that even if the state is guilty of not being democratic there is nothing anyone else can do about it because, by definition, punishment for illegality comes from the state, if not it is not the state.

The state will not punish itself for using only first-past-the-post if that is the system which it likes to use so then there is nothing anyone can do about it because the law is enforced by the state and the state will not act against itself if it chooses to retain fptp. There is nothing anyone can do about fptp (other than to express their outrage) because only the state can force a change in the law.

First past the post is not beneficial

One of the aspects of the first-past-the-post system is that, in response, voters tend to vote for the more established parties because they know votes for smaller parties will be wasted. Over time only two parties have any realistic chance of winning and we have a two-party system as described by Duverger's law. And the reason for this is that the interests of the voters are with themselves not the government, they favour themselves as voters over the state so they will vote 'tactically' to protect themselves from what they perceive to be the least bad of two imperfect options; they don't like either so they vote for the least bad, not wanting to waste their vote.

The emergence of tactical voting is to be welcomed (at least from the anti-state point of view) because it indicates that the people value self-ownership and are opposed to the state in general.

We can think of anarchy to be the truest and most extreme form of representative democracy, whereby each person votes for themselves. In a traditional referendum the electorate is asked to vote directly on laws without a parliamentary representative voting on their behalf. Anarchy is not inconsistent with democracy because people, overall, are opposed to the state, despite how things might appear.

Given the choice people will vote for freedom so any system which opposes voters (such as first-past-the-post) is unhelpful to freedom. Proportional representation enables people to vote for (their) freedom and so it provides more freedom than fptp. The opposite of freedom is statism so we can say that first-past-the-post is statist and that pr is aligned with freedom and anarchy.

If we accept that there is no left-wing without the state (that the left requires the state) then all things which are left-wing are also statist. An earlier blog has argued that first-past-the-post is left-wing and so if the left is always statist then fptp is not only left-wing but it is also statist.

Not all leftism is criminal some is merely threatening

For the purposes of this blogpost the words statism and leftism (left-wing) can be used interchangeably...

How do we know that something or some philosophy is left-wing? We know that all forms of leftism include within them some kind of collectivism but the important aspect which means that something is left-wing is that it involves the state. And further, because it involves the state it will involve physical force in some way, either actual or merely threatened. A great many defenders of the state will point to the fact that very few people are actually ever arrested or incarcerated for non-payment of taxes or similar. So they deduce not all of the state activities are a result of the use of physical force.

But we can say that everything the state does derives from either actual use of force or merely the threat of force. People who recognise that the freedom of speech is absolute will, perhaps with some regret, recognise that if actual force is not used then we only have spoken threats which are not physically aggressive. As distressing as those (threats of violence) are they are not actually physically aggressive and yet they support the state and leftism. So not all leftism is aggressive (physically) and yet it all involves force in some way, even if merely the threat of force. So if force is involved it is leftist (and statist), but not all leftism is aggressive, some is merely threatening.

Because crimes must be more than the spoken word (due to the freedom of speech) then not all leftism and statism is criminal, some is merely threatening, but all statism involves force, even if merely the threat of force.

Some statists, in their defence, do not actually use physical force they merely use threats of force and intimidation and for this reason we can say that not all leftism is aggressive, but all involves force, even if only threatened.

The political right is a subset of the left

We are familiar with the definition of left-wing to mean someone who advocates for a large state, usually with the provision of state services such as healthcare and education. The opposite of this, we are often given to assume is something called 'right-wing' but there is no such opposite of left-wing. The natural opposite of left-wing is liberal anarchy so then to be right-wing is nothing more than to be a kind of left-wing. The political right is a subset of the left, there is no part of the political right which is outside and apart from the left... all on the right are part of the left.

First past the post is left wing

A statement of Duverger's law is as follows: "Single-member-district electoral systems that require only a plurality to win election tend to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional-representation systems tend to produce multiparty systems..."

Given that this is true it might be possible to further speculate about the nature of those two parties and which kind of party is favoured by first-past-the-post.

If we accept that first-past-the-post results in a two-party system then (to use the established vernacular) one of these parties will likely be of the 'left' and the other will be of the 'right', with right-wing meaning that the particular party favours the market over the state. The left-wing party is more in favour of the state than the right-wing party. But if we examine the attitudes and behaviours of the voters it is likely (at least to my eyes) that a right-wing voter will find more to object to with this system because they are by nature more critical of the government. A left-wing voter is more tolerant of policies which they do not agree with being held by their party of choice because they understand that for the state to be large people must make compromises. I am not making a value judgement here about which attitude is favourable, I am merely making the case that left and right-wing voters are not symmetrical in their attitudes to government and their chosen political party.

Right-wing voters are much more likely to object to being 'forced' (expected?) to vote for a monopolistic right-wing party (as a consequence of Duverger's law) than the left because they by nature approve of choice in the market and presumably in the ballot box. It is more consistent for the left to tolerate something they might not choose for the greater benefit of the group and the state. So first-past-the-post is less offensive to the left because the compromises arising from a lack of realistic choice are less onerous given that they will generally be willing to make compromises for the state, and so they will be more loyal to the established party of the left.

People on the right will be less likely to remain loyal to the established party of the right because they are already predisposed to be oppositional with regard to the government. This is why first-past-the-post not only favours a two-party system but it further favours the party of the left.

There is no reason to support first past the post

There is no reason to assume that people do not know their own interests, in particular in reference to the state. To assume that the state always knows what is in the interests of the people even above their own stated opinions makes no sense because there is no evidence to support this. And if we have no evidence that democracy is bad then it makes sense to support it wherever possible.

Democracy is preferable to its absence and if someone seeks to suppress democracy then the burden of proof rests with them to show that the state knows best. And if the state knows what is good for one person then it knows what is good for all people. This makes no sense because ultimately this kind of state will reduce to all of the power being held by one person. There is no evidence to show that one person knows what is best for all people, and we would not be able to know how to choose the solitary leader.

In the end the burden of proof for the suppression of democracy rests with the person who doesn't like it because democracy gives people more choice where it would otherwise be absent and we presume in favour of choice, because there is no reason not to. There is no reason to reject choice and so we presume in favour of (more) democracy.

The state is insane to deny (the truth of) democracy

The people are more powerful than the state which is why the state is never justified in suppressing democracy. It makes no sense for the state to advocate first-past-the-post or any other non-optimal system of democracy because the purpose of the state is to serve the people (not the other way around).

The people are not only more powerful than the state they are also more important which means the people should be given the most direct voting system possible. The state is in denial of reality if it thinks that the suppression of democracy is a good idea. Democracy is a natural right if there is a state and not to recognise this is to deny reality.

First past the post is theft

What is and isn't theft is defined, at least in part, by the government. The criticism made by proponents of democracy (in contrast to fptp) is not that fptp enables the formation of a government but that the government being formed by fptp is invalid. The pro-pr argument is not one made by anarchists since, obviously, pro-pr advocates are tolerant of a government formed by proportional representation. We need a government to prevent crime and uphold the law. But the problem with fptp is that it gives a false mandate to the government such that what normally would be a crime (appropriation of property without consent) is made legal. For example, taxation without a democratic mandate is illegal but the election makes it less illegal. If the election is invalid there is no way for the government to do anything legally.

Almost all of the actions of the government are justified by the democratic process and this is not strictly a problem. We do not object when the government arrests criminals, and in fact the government is the only body who can rightly deal with law and order. We must have a government to prevent crime and this is why democracy is so important. If the government seizes power without holding an election there is no legal redress because the government has a monopoly on the law. At this stage (with an undemocratic government) all property is subject to government theft and the government can claim to be valid even if it was not fairly elected. If a government is elected via fptp it usually considers this to be a true mandate and proceeds to govern for the entire electoral term until the next election, usually for around four or five years. But this government is not valid and so everything which it does (when it is not elected democratically) is a crime and theft.

It is not uncommon for political parties to assume that fptp gives them a valid mandate to rule but this is not the case and to rule undemocratically is a form of theft. First past the post is theft because it (falsely) gives a mandate to politicians to govern when the people have not been given a true veto.

To govern using just first-past-the-post is a form of theft because the government can legally seize property from anyone. The only true and legal form of government is democratic and one which ensures all votes count equally, as in the case or either direct democracy or proportional representation. To govern without true democracy is theft.

If there is no government this is good for criminals

There can be little purpose in having a government if it is not opposed to crime. The government and the voting public are opposed to crime and they recognise that we have a right not to be subject to crime such as physical assault or the theft of our property. People in general, although perhaps not all, are opposed to crime and so when there is an election the voters will be opposed to crime. If voters are opposed to crime then a democracy will always be opposed to crime.

Democracy is bad for crime but if we do not have either a direct or proportional system then democracy is hindered which is to the advantage of crime and criminals. The first-past-the-post system is helpful to criminals because it disrupts the crime-stopping intentions of voters. Democracy and government stop crime but if we do not have a proportional (or direct) system then democracy (and government) is harmed and this is good for criminals. True government is democracy and so then fptp is not really true government, it is merely something which stands in the way of government and the people.

Government stops crime but if the government is not truly democratic (proportional) then it is not a government and there is nothing to stop crime. To stop crime we need a government but this means a proportionally-elected government, there is no government which is not proportionally-elected, we cannot stop crime with first-past-the-post (since it is a form of anarchy).

There is nothing wrong with representative democracy

Slavery is not merely insane on the part of the purported slave-owner but it is also arrogant to think that people can be owned. We know that people cannot be owned because the law rests on being helpful to mankind and where it ceases to be so then it is not valid. The law helps people and to be owned is unhelpful so people cannot be owned and slavery is illegal.

But the act of slave-owning is not merely a passive acquiescence with the prevailing (incorrect) laws, to own slaves is an active endeavour because the slaves must be threatened to prevent their freedom. If there are no threats (explicit or otherwise) the victim will safely walk free, so slavery is not passive, the criminal is taking positive action.

We can think of slave-owning to be a kind of insanity on the part of the criminal because they are unaware of the liberties of the victim, the slave-owner fails to see that people cannot be owned, but slavery is more than mere insanity, it is also arrogant because people (the victims) cannot be owned.

To be a slave-owner is to make the arrogant assumption that people can be the property of other people. This is an arrogant assumption and, since all arrogance is amusing at some level, it follows that to make the assumption of slavery is amusing. However grave their predicament, it is possible for the victim of slavery to laugh at the arrogance of the slave-owner to think that they have the legal right to own other human beings. Slavery is insane, but it is also amusing because the perpetrator has made the deeply arrogant assumption that they have the right to own other people, which they do not.

So slavery is not merely insanity, it is also arrogance and this fact better enables the victim to liberate themselves from this arrangement. If we see that slavery is funny and not merely disgusting then we remove it quicker.

First past the post is a form of slavery since the government doesn't grant to the electorate full democracy, which is slavery. We have generally considered this be to a disgusting lack of vision on the part of the state, but it is also funny. And when we see that fptp is funny as well as insane then it is easier to remove because our arguments against it are more immediate. First past the post is arrogant because it assumes the people are the subject of the state, whether they have an adequate form of democracy or not. And this is not the case.

First past the post is arrogant because the people cannot be owned, and so, because it is arrogant, it is also funny.

The state must use full democracy not to be criminal

The nature of government is that it has absolute legal control over the people, which indicates how important it is to make sure the government is acting in the best manner possible. The power of the government is absolute.

Anarchists tend to make the simple argument that since we each own ourselves there is never any valid government but the problem with this argument is that if we are to live without crime we must have some mechanism to deliver justice which inevitably becomes the government.

If government is not intrinsically bad (contrary to the anarchist position) we must make sure that it is restrained and accountable to the people and we do this through democracy. The government is the leader of the people (if it is valid at all) and as such must act with a fiduciary care over the people, which is to say that since it has legal ownership of the people it must act in their interests. If the state fails to act with adequate fiduciary care over the people then it must be removed and it is via democracy that this is carried out. If the people determine that the state has been negligent it will be replaced with a set of new politicians.

This notion of fiduciary care is important because it accepts that the state has a right to 'own' the people and individual members of the country but only on certain terms. To assume this kind of (fiduciary) ownership without adequate mandate (via elections) is a crime. The government must be fairly elected otherwise its special rights cease to be valid and the state is nothing other than a criminal organisation. It is democracy which protects the state from accusations of criminality but if a proportional voting system is not used this leads to problems.

If there is not a proportional voting system in place then the people will not be able to hold the state to account, since they will not have an adequate veto to remove the distrusted politicians. If both of the main parties (under a first-past-the-post system) share characteristics which are troublesome to the people this leads to problems which are remedied by a direct (or proportional) system.

Because the state has a duty of fiduciary care over the people it must use full democracy otherwise it ceases to be a valid and helpful organisation and it instead becomes criminal. Only pr prevents the state from being criminal.

Tories must accept that first past the post is bad

If we accept that the Tories are a low-tax party then their position on the first-past-the-post voting system makes no sense because it monopolises the centre-right. If the Tories are in favour of low taxes they will not mind which party is in power provided they are economically liberal. (It doesn't matter to the Tories the name of the party in power only the policies.) But with fptp voters who seek to reject the centre-left Labour party must vote for the Tories to keep them out. This restriction of choice for low taxation voters means that Labour are more likely to get in and this system of voting encourages higher taxation and more state spending.

Tories are hurting their own low-taxation cause by refusing to accept that a more democratic system is preferable. Not only would taxation in general be lower the money would likely be spent more carefully and the manner in which it is raised might also be better.

Overall the first-past-the-post system of voting hurts the electorate which is never good and it is especially not good for those who favour a liberal economy. Tories must accept the truth that the voting system they support is harmful to the country and the economy.

If the state is accountable there will be lower taxation

It is only via elections that we are able to protect ourselves from the state, and as such elections are the only mechanism by which we are able to express an opinion on taxes and the actions of the government. Without elections the government is able to expend endlessly so we must have elections otherwise the government will get out of control to the detriment of the economy.

First past the post is a stubborn problem

Only if the voters themselves abandon first-past-the-post by voting for the smaller parties will it ever get removed.

We can assume the members of the big two parties will remain loyal to fptp since it is so helpful to them... and if they decide that an alternate system is better then they become a supporter of another party (they have abandoned the big two).

The reason the first-past-the-post system is so resistant to argument is that it doesn't enable critics to emphasise their natural rights in the way that typical violations of our rights are vulnerable to. If we take the simple violation of natural rights which is physical assault the complainant can easily argue that they have a right to retaliate and that to do so will be an act of defence against aggression. Assault is aggression so it is easy to argue against. So too with government violations of our rights, let's start with taxation which Libertarians argue is an aggressive violation of the non-aggression principle. So too with drug prohibition, this is seen as aggressive and to argue against it is easy because we can claim that force used in retaliation is justified. And so we have established the principle that if retaliatory force is justified then it is easy to argue against a proposal. The problem (as far as rhetoric is concerned) when we come to the voting system is that the absence of a true democratic system is not aggression. It is not aggressive not to provide pr because the absence of something is never aggressive, by definition. And so fptp remains resistant to rhetorical arguments...

Since this is the case we can never convince adherents to fptp that it is wrong unless they come to the realisation themselves which means we can only wait for everyone else to realise the problem and abandon the big two. The parties themselves will not wake up and even if individual members of each party wake up this will not make a difference because the natural course of action in that situation would be to leave the party, as many have done.

First-past-the-post is a stubborn problem which is only remedied by large numbers of people abandoning the main parties, which is only achieved by each voter coming to the realisation that there is a problem.

First past the post is a crime subsidy

Democracy enables the voters to stop crime in their country so it makes little sense to vote for a party which is opposed to democracy, as the first-past-the-post parties are. The fptp parties support a lack of democracy which means they make it more difficult for people to liberate themselves from crime. To assist criminals in this way is unhelpful and voters should not support this... voters should 'default' on parties which support crime.

More democratic systems are better at stopping crime

Elections themselves are not a problem provided the preponderance of people are liberal. Compared to the anarchist position, provided the majority of people are liberal it is hard to argue that government by democracy is objectively bad. If most people are liberal then in a democracy liberal freedoms will be protected which is as much as anarchists can fairly request. On the other hand it is possible to make arguments in favour of a democratic government... with democracy we can see what people think without having to guess what a typical person will tolerate in a stateless society. Democracy has advantages because we know what is and is not legal whereas in an anarchist situation you are vulnerable to the whims of individuals who may have a very different interpretation of morality than yourself.

Elections are also a form of abstraction of what each voter considers to be acceptable. We can think of each vote cast in a general election to be similar to a vote cast by a jury member in a trial. We are giving the government permission to prosecute against certain activities (now defined as crimes) and not against others. This means that our view of what behaviours are tolerable in society is abstracted via the ballot box and we do not have such a great need to protect ourselves. It is the difference between dialogue and conflict. We can learn from each other what we consider criminal and what we consider a public right.

Assuming there is a government and it serves this anti-criminal role then when there is an election, the more choice that is available better enables the voters to protect themselves from crime. We can deduce that overall the people are anti-crime, as history has shown, so limiting the ability of voters to choose a true representative limits their ability to protect themselves from crime (in society). Voters rely on the government to protect them from crime but if there is less democracy the people are less well able to communicate to the government what they deem to be a crime, which is bad because this lets more crime happen. More democratic systems are worse for criminals because the people are better able to express their revulsion at crime if they have a broader choice of candidate.

It is better to settle our disputes by casting a vote

Freedom, to a large extent, relies on being able to safely disagree with people and this is one of the advantages of democracy. Without democracy it is possible for people to make property claims which are controversial and unresolved. With democracy we have a means to settle disputes of this kind. It is better to be able to settle our disputes (and even to decide which group is the most powerful) by means of casting a vote rather than to actually engage physically.

We can assume that parliamentarians have more interest in protecting parliament than typical people and that people in government are more inclined to socialism than typical people, merely because they would be the first people to get the money. Democracy is liberating when compared to governments without democratic accountability (not compared to anarchy). Democracy tends to enhance liberty and reduce collectivism because the people are further from the government than the politicians. If there is less democracy (as with first-past-the-post) this protects parliament from the voters which will reduce freedom.

Freedom is derived from being able to safely reject other people from themselves and their (your) property and this is why democracy is liberating. The more democracy the state is accountable to the more freedom the people will have.

First past the post is not a conservative system

We can assume conservatives are opposed to endless and unlimited government expansion, since the conservative position is generally opposed to expansionist government. Conservatism is associated with small government which means to be consistent it is also in favour of democracy since only democracy constrains the state.

People with experience of established democracies will know that it is only around election time that the ruling class pay attention to the feelings of the electorate. Since it is only the electorate who are able to remove the politicians from office, it is only the voters that the politicians fear. Democracy is the only means to constrain the state and so (since conservatives are in favour of state constraint) conservatives are in favour of more democracy (otherwise they are being inconsistent).

For the state to be accountable to the people is a conservative principle, if it is not then conservatism is opposed to state constraint and in favour of continued state expansion leading to full communism. If conservatives are not communists they are in favour of democracy which means they have a preference for proportional representation over first-past-the-post.

Non-communists have a preference for proportional representation over first-past-the-post since only democracy is able to constrain the state.

The bad news is that first past the post is oppressive

The nature of the first-past-the-post voting system is that someone can become a Member of Parliament without achieving a majority of the votes cast, merely a plurality. This means that votes cast for losing candidates are eliminated from the electoral process to a greater degree than with a proportional system. If we assume that the eliminated candidates were in disagreement with the winning candidate then the result is that there will be more consensus and less antagonism as a result, in parliament. Since for people to be free requires that they are able to safely disagree, this results in less freedom for the people. If the minority candidates which 'lost' the fptp election are nevertheless promoted to parliament in a proportional manner this means that (because a greater extent of the people are represented) there is more freedom.

The first-past-the-post system blocks voters from parliament which results in less freedom.

First past the post is not libertarian

If we consider the case of either direct democracy or proportional representation then we can see that the interests of the public are served in both cases. An example of direct democracy is a referendum where the people (however well-informed or otherwise) vote directly on the legislation without a representative voting on their behalf. We can consider proportional representation (despite its name) to be a kind of democracy without representation because voters are truly represented by someone who shares their views; in a representative system like first-past-the-post the views of the representative often differ from the voters.

Because, by their nature, officials elected via fptp are close to the government (unlike with proportional systems) they will tend to vote in favour of the state in contrast to the people. The people (or proportionally-elected representatives) can be relied upon to vote for their own interests ahead of those of the state, which is what we would expect in a democracy. Since to advance the interests of the people ahead of the state is libertarian by definition then we can say that true democracy is libertarian and that fptp is not libertarian.

Libertarian policies will be those which are more favourable to the people of a country than the state so then (because democracy serves the people) we can say that true democracy is libertarian, in contrast to fptp. Because first-past-the-post is representative and not direct it is less libertarian than other systems.

First past the post is not true democracy

In a genuinely democratic system participants are able to vote in a 'naive' sense, they are able to vote without thinking about how other people are likely to vote. If tactical voting is eliminated from the electoral process (as with proportional representation) then we have true democracy.

First past the post is not liberal

Whilst winners of a first-past-the-post election will claim to be true representatives of their electorate, this is not necessarily the case because many voters have been ignored. If only one candidate in a seat is able to advance to the legislature this means that the outcome is unlikely to be proportional and tactical voting may be rewarded. The remedy to this situation is to have either direct democracy or to have many more winners per seat. If there are more winners per seat then voters who support the smaller parties are less likely to be excluded. It is one of the principles of a liberal democracy that all voters are included and given representation, which is why the fptp system fails in being liberal.

A democratic system can be said to be liberal if it is either direct (as in a referendum) or otherwise proportional and if there are many winners in each seat then the system is adequately proportional. If voters for the smaller (minority) parties are excluded by the voting system chosen this is not a liberal system and voters have a right to liberalism.

The voting public, as subjects of the state, have the right to liberal elections and if the first-past-the-post system is in use this right has been oppressed which is a crime. By definition, in a liberal society, all freedoms which are not a crime are a right and so to have 'fair' elections is a right. The government do not have a right to use the first-past-the-post system because it oppresses the voters for the smaller parties and so, in a liberal society, for the government to use fptp is a crime.

Liberalism is true and so then, because fptp excludes minority voters (which is not a right), the first-past-the-post system is criminal. All voters in a liberal society must be respected and represented which means only direct democracy or proportional representation are permissible.

First past the post is equivalent to government

Anarchists want to liberate themselves from the state and the state (generally) seeks to attach itself to those who seek to leave. Democracy is the primary means by which people who do not like the state are able to liberate themselves from it but if the voting system is not proportional this weakens this ability. If the voting system is not proportional anarchists will find it more difficult to remove themselves from the state when they vote. Voting is bad for the government but fptp is less democratic (less proportional) which means it protects the state from the liberation of the people.

With either direct democracy or pr (proportional representation) the voters are able to some extent to escape the state which means that these systems are better for anarchists. The fptp system protects the state and so it is preferable for the state to have.

First past the post is associated with the state.

Democracy is peaceful and anti-authoritarian

The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to protect themselves from crime, however that is defined. Since crime is always authoritarian (the criminal fails to respect the rights of the victim), democracy being anti-authoritarian prevents crime. Democracy is not criminal and as such it promotes peace and any opposition to democracy such as the first-past-the-post system is harmful to peace and is criminal.

Democracy is anti-authoritarian anarchy and so it acts against crime. Without authority (with anarchy) there is no crime and so democracy prevents crime and protects freedom.

There are no governments

From the point of view of the government and politicians democracy is a problem because it means that the government can be replaced. But this is the purpose of democracy so for democracy to be unhelpful to politicians is not a contradiction. Democracy is anarchy from the point of view of the government (which is the only relevant point of view).

The first-past-the-post voting system is less democratic than proportional alternatives which means it is less anarchistic. And from the point of view of the voter anarchy is good because it gives them more power. The interests of the voter are aligned with anarchy and anti-authoritarianism. If the opposite of authority is anarchy then voters are anti-authoritarian. And in this sense first-past-the-post is authoritarian.

The purpose of this post is merely to arrange the words correctly and to make sure they are adequately-defined, in a sense to define reality, at least according to how the words are being used. We are defining the truth, I have not found a contradiction in the fptp position, merely that it denies reality and so I am just writing this post to further define reality, in particular with regard to the use of the words anarchy, government and so on.

The problem with a lack of democracy (a lack of anarchy) is that eventually an authority will emerge which is to the detriment of the people. We can think of an authority as being completely synonymous with government, without government there are no authorities.

First past the post is communism

One of the strange things about the first-past-the-post voting system and those people who advocate for it is that adherents will accept that it is 'unfair' and yet still propose that it is retained. We do not very often see this in other areas, generally and especially in politics, once a discrepancy such as this has been identified it is removed with little discussion. This is not the case with first-past-the-post. The difference, although not the explanation, it that normally the discrepancy is to do with the state treating different people and groups with prejudice. Here (with fptp) it is the state itself whom is the beneficiary.

It is clear to all who have looked at the phenomenon even in passing that the fptp voting system is prejudicial against supporters of the smaller parties and for this reason it should be replaced, if the principle of democracy is to be upheld. There is no reason to defend fptp other than to protect undemocratic (unpopular) elements of the state against public opinion. To protect the state in this way is communism and oppression of the voting people.

First-past-the-post is communism because it protects the state from the voting public who they are meant (in a democracy) to serve. There is no justification for fptp (as most people recognise and accept) and yet for some reason it remains, simply because the normal means of holding the state to account via the ballot box, do not apply by definition. To some degree, it is a self-causing problem. Advocates of fptp should be punished and the normal means of punishing the state is to remove them in an election, which by definition is not easy because of the voting system.

First-past-the-post is criminally undemocratic.

First past the post is welfare for the government

If the people cannot easily remove the government then the government is subsidised and this is welfare for the government.

In general, in spite of the apparent advantages of being in receipt of unfair and unequal support in the long run it is best to be exposed to the harsh realities of the market. In in the end the subsidy will be withdrawn (no crime is permanent) so then it is better to face the realities of life without welfare as soon as possible and for this reason the Tories should reject fptp as soon as possible. It is better for the Tories and all of the other parties to be exposed to the truth of democracy at the earliest opportunity, not only for their sake but for the voters too, which means they should adopt proportional representation. Welfare is bad for the recipient which means the Tories should support electoral reform.

Democracy is not a crime it is a right

There is no reason to ban things which do not hurt other people, this is the foundation of a liberal society... that we have a right to do anything which is not a crime. A liberal society will always presume in favour of freedom.

To vote is not a crime and so then it becomes a right and we can also think of democracy itself as a right which is held by people in a liberal and free country. The purpose of democracy is to protect the people from a too-powerful government so then democracy is a right because it is not a crime (for the people) to be protected from the government. It is not a crime for the people of a state to have democracy and then to suppress or otherwise damage democracy is a crime by those doing it, even if they are the state itself. If we accept that democracy is a right then, presumably proportional representation also becomes a right since otherwise the voters have not had their opinion fully respected. The first-past-the-post system unnecessarily favours some voters above others for which there is no reason or justification, so then fptp is criminal.

That which is not a crime is a right and then proportional representation is a right.

The system of first past the post is false

The government has not obtained a mandate from the people if an unfair electoral system has been used. We know that first-past-the-post is a form of democracy but that is not sufficient to give the state a mandate, we must use a proportional system. (Democracy alone is not enough.) Without pr the government has no mandate.

It is not so much a contradiction for the state to have failed to be democratic (fptp qualifies as democratic) but that the state has failed to be exposed to a proportional system. Non-democracy, whilst being a contradiction, is not the only contradiction, there is a further contradiction for those who seek to rule which is non-proportionality.

The government has an obligation to use the best and most challenging (from their perspective) form of democracy which rules out fptp. The government has an obligation to see the truth (not to be insane) and not to deny that pr is preferable to the alternative (first-past-the-post). The government must be attentive to the needs of the people if it seeks to rule them and within those needs is included proportional representation. The truth is that pr serves the people better than fptp and to claim that fptp is the best system is an obvious lie because there is an internal contradiction in that fptp accepts some democracy but not full democracy. There are no contradictions as far as the truth is concerned so fptp must not be true, it is false.

Proportional representation is logical

If there is a first-past-the-post electoral system imposed on the people by an establishment party of the right then the natural reaction is to oppose this. Not to have full democracy is a form of slavery which means that voters will be inclined to protect themselves from this injustice, since they value themselves not below their masters. From the Tory point of view to vote for Labour is to disrupt their plans and to cause damage to the Tory-owned state.

The left are logically trying to protect themselves from electoral slavery and the right are trying to impose (or maintain) the system of semi-democratic slavery.

A lack of democracy is associated with corruption

The problem with the first-past-the-post voting system is that it protects both of the main parties so each suffers from the same lack of accountability which is present in a totalitarian system. Without any form of democracy (not even fptp) we know that the state will descend into totalitarianism despite its apparently well-meaning intentions. And so this is true also of political parties which have a monopoly on the left and right. Because the parties are confident that the voters will not abandon their party for a lesser one which will not register at the ballot box, both parties in a fptp system are protected from the electorate just as a totalitarian government is protected. This leads to corruption and poor government because without the ultimate threat of expulsion from office parties and politicians will get complacent.

Democracy is not authoritarian

If the democratic franchise is extended to all people then we have universal suffrage and (rule by) democracy in its true expression, which is that all people have control over the government. If we do not have full democracy then we must have some form of oligarchy (rule by the few) since the government is controlled by less than all the people. There are different kinds of oligarchy but one of the them is the first-past-the-post voting system which awards the entirety of the power to the leading party, even if they fail to get a majority of the votes. In a proportional system power is delivered only to legislators who are representative of at least half of the electorate. If democratic representation is either direct or proportional then we can think of it as being a kind of anarchy since there is no absolute authority and the people are in charge, so then there is a parallel to be made between democracy and anarchy.

There is no such comparison to be made between oligarchy and anarchy since rule by a minority is not rule by the people and then must include an element of authoritarianism.

If the largest party is able to form a government (as they are able to do with fptp) then a minority is able to control the majority which is not anarchy and not true democracy. Direct democracy (including pr) is much more like anarchy than fptp because we are able to represent ourselves. If representation is true to our principles then we might think that this is not authoritarian which means it is similar to non-government. A true democracy is very much like non-government and it is a form of anarchy in that it is not authoritarian.

Direct democracy prevents the tyranny of the minority

It makes sense for the state to be democratic because if the state is not helpful to the people then it is good that they have the means to push back against the state. If the state is helpful then democracy will be no impediment to it.

Anarchists might claim that democracy has no place in a civilised society because it gives rise to the state. But amongst non-anarchists there can be little strong argument opposed to democracy. If the actions of the state are popular then democracy will not threaten them and if they are unpopular then (by definition) they are bad. The state is bad if it is unpopular, so tyrannies are never democratic by definition. Democracy prevents tyranny and only an anarchist can logically oppose democracy.

First past the post enables the tyranny of the minority which is prevented by direct democracy.

Non-democracy can be considered to be a kind of tax

Despite the fact that anarchists reject the concept of the state there is no reason for them to be indifferent between different kinds of government. Most anarchists would accept that democracy is (objectively) preferable to dictatorship and that direct democracy is preferable to other kinds of democracy. Even anarchists would accept that if the state is accountable to the people then there is less chance of the emergence of tyranny.

If anarchists have a preference for democracy then they will have a preference for proportional representation over first-past-the-post. We (anarchists) would be pleased and grateful to live in a country with at least fptp but would like for the state to give up even more of its powers to the people by accepting pr. With fptp the state has given up some of its power and control to the people and with pr even more is given up. And since when the state gives up power this is liberal and pro-anarchy then anarchists like (direct) democracy. Democracy is not inconsistent with anarchism, although it might be considered inconsistent with absolute anarchy. (Anarchists can argue for full democracy where only partial democracy presently exists, and not be considered inconsistent.)

Since democracy is liberal (the state has given up powers to the people), more democracy is more liberal than less democracy. Liberalism is associated with freedom and a lack of coercion. Taxation is illiberal which means that non-democracy can be considered to be a kind of taxation given that in general the people will vote to be free (from the state). The state has the power to oppress freedom which means that in general democracy acts to enhance freedom.

Democracy is liberating compared to its absence

If we assume that, at least as far as politics is concerned, people hold their own interests above those of others then we have an argument for democracy. If we imagine a state which is not answerable to democracy then we can see that this will quickly descend into totalitarianism (in the name of communism). The reason for this is that when important decisions are made the state will choose to protect itself above the ordinary person. Equally when elections are held in a democratic country we can assume the people will place themselves (and their interests) above the state. And it is for this reason that democracy is liberating compared to its absence.

Whilst people might claim to be patriotic and to always put their government above themselves, the presence of democracy enables the people to protect themselves from an over-bearing state. Democracy is liberating and provides freedom because it means that the people are able to constrain the state.

Without democracy there is no valid law

If it is true that the establishment is protected by the first-past-the-post system then the establishment are an impediment to justice. To have a fair and valid system of government and law requires that the state be accountable to the people which it serves. If this is not the case then the state has no mandate because without democracy no state is valid. The state must be democratic and use proportional representation (or direct democracy) otherwise there is no valid justice system because this too relies on democracy. Without democracy there is no valid system of law and justice.

First past the post protects the establishment

We assume that government itself is a good thing otherwise there would be no reason to support it and to pay taxes to it. So then given that government by definition is a good thing there is no reason to oppress democracy by protecting the first-past-the-post system.

If government and democracy is not good then there might be a reason to protect the establishment by oppressing democracy but since there is no problem with democracy (and government) there is no problem with proportional representation. Proportional representation is fine because both government and democracy are objectively good. First-past-the-post is anti-state which is to deny the virtues of government.

First-past-the-post is anarchist only if the establishment which are retained in the absence of proportional representation are anarchist. If the establishment are not anarchist then fptp is not anarchist.

Direct representation is better than first past the post

As far as democracy is concerned it is possible for not all legislation to be voted on by the public, instead we can have representatives who decide on most law on our behalf. Provided the representatives themselves are a fair reflection of the voting public then the outcome will not differ too greatly from direct democracy. And in this sense if the representatives deliver a form of government equivalent to that which would be delivered with direct democracy we can call it direct representation.

By its nature direct representation will need to be proportional otherwise the government would not be a fair reflection of the voting public.

We use the term direct to convey the sense that the people are in charge as they should be in a democracy. This means that they (the people) have direct access to the legislative process and can veto any bad laws. It also means that if the legislators fail to serve the people then the people have the power to remove them. If the democracy is not direct (as in the case of first-past-the-post) then it becomes much more difficult to remove bad legislators because of the two-party system which tends to develop.

Ultimately people prefer themselves to the state

The more democracy there is the easier it is for the people to hold the state to account. We can think of democracy as a kind of anarchy in that the people get to express their preferences in the ballot box without finding out how things would end up without a government. It is a way for people to protect themselves without using force, it is a kind of protection above the purest form of anarchy in which we would only find out what people think (and are able to protect) when force is used. In summary, democracy is very similar to anarchy but we might not think so because very few countries are fully-democratic.

The purest form of democracy is direct democracy with proportional representation coming a very close second because it is almost the same as direct democracy. (In fact we might even argue that pr is better than direct democracy because representatives are able to dedicate more time to the legislative process than typical people.)

Any form of government which is not fully-democratic will be larger and more oppressive than a democratic government because ultimately people prefer themselves to the state. For the government to oppress democracy is to protect themselves which is an act against anarchy. For the state to claim that to protect the first-past-the-post system from pr is an act of anti-socialism and pro-anarchy is not true. It is denialism to think that to oppress democracy is harmful to the state and so liberating. If we assume Tories think of themselves as being anti-socialism and are in favour of the fptp method then we have a contradiction because democracy is (in the long run) bad for socialism. To take this position is to be in denial of the truth that democracy and anarchy are associated and not contradictory.

Tories do not support first past the post

It is not easy for voters to make a choice between the Labour party and a purportedly right-wing party which is opposed to democracy. The first-past-the-post system is anti-democratic which means that it restricts choice for voters. Since freedom of choice is associated with capitalism and right-wing policies it is transparently hypocritical for a party on the right to reject proportional representation. For the Tories to reject pr is a kind of electoral denialism which makes voting for them difficult.

If the Tories chose to support a proportional system of voting it is likely they would be able to attract voters who find it hard (and contradictory) to vote for a party which rejects democracy. But if they do not support pr then Labour will win because people who are right-wing will find it difficult to accept the logic of choice in the financial market but not at the ballot box. In the long term the Tories as the party of the right will not win fptp elections and their only possibility to gain office is if they reject fptp for pr.

If the Tories support pr then even in opposition they will be able to influence policy such that even if Labour retain their anti-democracy position the voting system will change from fptp. Given that Tories lose under fptp it is only logical for true Tories to reject fptp for pr.

The nanny state is not the same as democracy

The state has no right to exist without democracy. To have the consent of the people via democracy is a requirement for a valid state. A reason for this is that the state has the ability to (legally) constrict personal choice and control our actions. Without democratic accountability these powers can descend into a tyrannical situation... these powers must be held in check by democracy.

To have unchecked state powers is a kind of nanny-statism whereby the state is able to restrict our lives for our own benefit. If we are being controlled for our own benefit because other people claim to know better this is dangerous because the typical arguments in favour of freedom have been nullified due to the claim that the state knows best. If someone (with power over us) claims to know what is in our interests and that we as individuals do not know what is best for us then there is no argument for individual autonomy. To prevent a nanny state all state power must be democratically accountable so that the state is held to account by the people.

The Labour party supports direct democracy

Generally speaking those who seek political power do so in the hope that what they do will be helpful and popular. It is rare for politicians (however bad) to seek political office with the deliberate intention of harming the people and being unpopular so then it is strange that not all politicians advocate more democracy. If we (as a politician) consent to the concept of being democratically accountable then there is no reason not to seek to maximise democracy. All reasonable politicians accept and advocate democracy and so then all are in favour of proportional representation and none of them tolerate first-past-the-post. It might be argued that I am wrong and that there is good evidence to show that some politicians reject pr and in fact support first-past-the-post but those people are not true politicians, they are something else.

All genuine politicians (including the Labour party and the Conservative party) support direct democracy and proportional representation. It is incorrect to think that Labour and the Conservatives do not support proportional representation in spite of what may appear to be evidence to the contrary.

Elections prove the state is different from the people

There is a big difference between the voters and the state otherwise there would be no need for elections. But since there is a difference between the people and the state (the state is a false concept) we need elections to make sure the state has a mandate from the people to act as it is acting. We cannot be sure that the people entirely approve of all that the state is doing which is why we need elections. And if we need elections then it makes sense that we would prefer them to be as democratic and proportional as possible (which doesn't exclude direct democracy).

The state might be unpopular because it is different from the people which means that (full) democracy is logical. The state is an abstract and arbitrary construct (it is different from the people) so then for it to be even slightly valid requires that it must be accountable to elections. If it must hold at least fptp elections then it must further hold pr elections... if the state is invalid without holding elections (and holds fptp elections for this reason) the logic leading up to the fptp elections further suggests that pr elections must be held. If it is logical to hold fptp elections then it is further logical for the state to hold proportional elections (because the state is invalid).

The Tories should be called the Progressives

If we have democracy then to be conservative is to be in favour of democracy and anarchists would then be progressives (in the face of democracy which is synonymous with the state). First-past-the-post is anti-democratic (anti-state) which suggests that the Conservatives (who support fptp) do not like democracy which would make them anarchists. Since anarchy is progressive in the light of democracy and the state then the Conservative party are progressives since they oppose proportional representation.

Since the position of a political party on the type of voting system they prefer is of optimal importance then it makes no sense for the Conservatives (who oppose pr) not to describe themselves as progressives since anarchy (and anti-democracy) is progressive.

Anarchists are progressives which means that it makes little sense for the Conservatives not to change their name to the Progressives since they are anarchists of a kind. The Conservatives are anarchists because they oppose pr which means they should correctly be named the Progressive party and not the Conservatives.

Voters should not comply with totalitarianism

If we accept to some degree that to not have full democracy is helpful to the establishment then (despite democracy being good for the state) the establishment is not entirely of the state. The establishment by definition are not anarchists and so then we can deduce that if the establishment are statists who dislike democracy they are in some sense totalitarians since anti-democratic statism is totalitarianism.

When people vote for either of the first-past-the-post parties (Labour and the Conservatives) they are supporting the anti-democratic establishment which means they are complying with anti-democratic totalitarianism (all anti-democratic governments are totalitarian). So the voters are failing to take the opportunity of blocking the totalitarian anti-democratic establishment.

Voters should not comply with any form of totalitarianism even one which might appear to be as benign as the fptp voting system. All forms of totalitarianism should be opposed and for this reason voters should not vote for any party which endorses fptp.

The people should not accept first past the post

Voters should not accept the first-past-the-post voting system because democracy is logical and good and fptp is not the most democratic system possible. It is rational for the voting public to refuse to use fptp when electing their representatives and accept only a truly democratic system such as direct democracy or pr. If the people accept fptp they are (perhaps) enabling an unpopular government to remain in power which is objectively bad.

To vote in a first past the post election is not logical

Democracy is good because if the government is good (for the people) it will be popular and elections will present no threat to the government. Elections are a threat only if the government is bad for the people which means that democracy is only ever a positive thing. There is no reason to oppress democracy and yet to not have proportional representation and to instead have first-past-the-post is to oppress democracy at least slightly. Very few people interested in the subject refute that pr is more democratic than fptp... adherents of fptp generally accept that it is less democratic but suggest that in some sense democracy is not entirely to be welcomed.

There is no reason to suppress democracy so there is no reason to have first-past-the-post over pr so a government which is using fptp is knowingly suppressing the people which is both evil and illogical.

When faced with an act of evil perpetrated against ourselves then it makes no sense to comply with this process. To vote in a fptp election is to consent to the system and to be complicit which is not logical since evil is not logical.

There is no rational reason to vote in a fptp election since the system being used is wrong.

Proportional representation is logical

If the government is not good for the people as a whole then it is not good at all and there should instead be anarchy. The government is useful only if it is helpful to the people and there are arguments to say that government helps to define property rights and prevent crime. But if something is good for the people then there is no reason for it not to be democratic. If non-democracy (fptp) is helpful to the government then the government is acting against the wishes of the people which is evil (since the government must be good to be valid). Non-democracy is never helpful to a good government and it makes no sense for the government not to be good... so then non-democracy makes no sense and is illogical. Democracy is logical because if the government is good it will not seek to oppress the people with non-democracy and if the government is not good we should have no government (which might be thought of as an extreme form of democracy). There is no rational reason to defend the first-past-the-post system.

The truth is left wing if fptp is right wing

In a democracy it is the opinion of the voters which matters more than that of the politicians. So in a sense the truth (at least politically) is defined by the people and not the state. The state is subordinate to the people in a democracy.

Since the people (the voters) are not the state and have different interests to the state then they are anarchists in this context. And if we consider first-past-the-post to be right wing then anarchy is left wing because what is good for democracy is good for the people. And if the people define the truth then anarchy and the truth are both left wing (this all assumes fptp is right wing).

There is no contradiction in the left wing being interested in the preservation of peace and property rights. The right do not have a political monopoly on being opposed to crime. It is also true that we can think of anti-democrats (including fptp-supporters) as criminals since they seek to reject the will of the people. And then it is the democrats who act as the agents of peace and the law when they seek to replace fptp with proportional representation. To oppose the introduction of pr is an act of statist crime against the democratic people. It is an act perpetrated by the state in defence against them becoming more accountable to the people. The state seeks to maintain the (criminal) insanity of an undemocratic system which is why it argues against pr. The introduction of pr would be an end to the crime of fptp.

The establishment aren't concerned about democracy

In a country where first-past-the-post exists it is likely to have been supported by the establishment. Democracy would have been less threatening to the establishment if a single representative is sent from each constituency to take their place in parliament. This would have been correctly perceived at the implementation of democracy to be closer to what was already in existence.

When democrats today complain about the fptp system it is expected that those complaints will be recognised but there is no reason to think that they will. If we assume that it is the establishment who are in control of the voting system then to complain to them about it is to assume that they would be vulnerable to accusations of non-democracy. But there is no evidence that for the establishment non-democracy is a contradiction. It is very likely that the establishment is not concerned that the parliamentary system in place is not entirely democratic because the shortfall is (naturally) to the favour of the establishment.

Democracy is not an obligation of the state

The government can steal everything from you. If it cannot then it is not the government because to be a government means that there is nothing more powerful to threaten you. So if there is a government then your rights are only that which the government decides to leave for you. Everything you own including your body is owned by you only because the government has not claimed it.

Not excluded from these rights which the government can take is the right to democracy itself. If there is an absolute state then this state can simply remove democracy on a whim and the state will remain (if not it was not a true state initially). The state doesn't have to give us democracy, we have no right to democracy. And because of this it is very difficult to argue for more democracy than exists presently because you have no power to make such a claim. All you can do is express your disappointment that there is insufficient accountability. We have no right to democracy and so then we have no right to replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation.

If there is a state then our rights are granted only by the state and we have no other rights. If there is no state then our rights are determined by our own opinion and that of our compatriots. We have no non state-granted rights if there is a state which means that if the state fails to grant (full) democracy it is not a right under the state. Democracy is not a natural right if the state refuses to give it since in the presence of the state natural rights are constrained to those granted by the state.

The state determines natural rights (otherwise there would be no state).

The desire for democracy is different from other claims because with democracy we are not seeking to protect ourselves necessarily but to elect a representative. We can think of this as the manifestation of our natural desires to protect ourselves and our property. Voting is largely an anti-crime activity and so then to have our vote removed is like removing one of our natural protections. If we do not have democracy then our ability to repel criminals is reduced because the state takes on this role but without our guidance. It is only the state which stops criminals but if we don't have democracy the state will be much worse at this endeavour (and let criminals in). The state is the police but if we don't have democracy the police will be much less good at their job.

It is nice to be given democracy by the state (the police) but if we have not been given democracy there is little we can do to complain about it other than to demand anarchy. It is a lack of deference on the part of the state which fails to respect that the state must serve before it leads that leads to a lack of democracy. For this reason there is nothing intrinsically 'arrogant' about first-past-the-post because we democrats are defaulting on the state (in a conservative fashion) rather than laughing at it. We democrats would argue that if we must have a state then at least give us full democracy otherwise we would prefer (the absence of a state and to have) anarchy. We want anarchy unless you give us democracy. First-past-the-post is worse than complete anarchy.

But this is only a statement of comparative tastes and ultimately if we respect the state then there is no argument for democracy.

Liberal Tories deny the death of the establishment

If we assume that the Tories do not get tactical anti-Labour support (as the Tories tend to claim) then their relative popularity is explained by them being the accepted party of the establishment... such that a non-socialist voter would unquestioningly support the Tories despite there being other parties with similar policies. It is this loyalty to the Tory party by the voter which is due to them being the party of the establishment which makes the Tory party such a potent threat to Labour.

But over time this loyalty to the Tory party being the party of the establishment on the right will erode and voters will be prepared to let the Tories lose even if this means letting Labour in. It is not enough for the party of the right to rely on voters being loyal to their monolithic establishment party because eventually voters will resent being coerced into voting for a single party. They will resent their vote being taken for granted and they will let Labour (the Democrats in the USA) win.

The establishment on the right is dying which means that people support parties other than the Tories and this means that the first-past-the-post system is a problem for liberals. If the establishment is not dying then fptp doesn't disadvantage liberals but otherwise fptp is helpful to the left. For Tories to continue to support fptp means that either they do not care about losing to Labour (they are not liberals) or they are in denial with regard to the death of the establishment. Liberal Tories who support fptp are in denial of the death of the establishment.

Proportional representation ensures a majority

The winner of a two-party winner-takes-all voting system is only the better of two and not the best of all possible candidates.

If the election organisers do not take steps to ensure that representation is in accordance with support then people will take into account precedence and vote only for parties which they already know to be popular. Or if they don't then candidates from the largest minority could still win many or even all of the seats despite not getting a majority (of the votes). In a democracy we should need a majority to gain power and pass legislation, we do not want to have legislation passed (and the parliament controlled) by merely the best minority we require a majority. We the people do not want to be victims of (subject to) a parliament which is controlled by a mere minority... even if it is the largest minority. We have a right to demand that all legislation is supported by at least half of the people.

First-past-the-post enables government by minority which would be made impossible with proportional representation.

Without choice there is no accountability

True democracy is accountable in the sense that either the people vote directly on legislation or their representatives can be removed easily by the people.

First-past-the-post doesn't provide a fully-accountable form of democracy because if voters want neither of the main parties their vote is ignored. We have been given an accountable vote when the significance of our vote doesn't depend on the party or candidate we vote for. In a proportional system to vote for one candidate is to reject all the others but this is not the case with first-past-the-post. With fptp we are not blocking the other candidates unless we vote for a party which is established so these candidates are much less accountable to the voter. To be a candidate for one of the main parties is almost to have a one-in-two chance of success.

To be in receipt of tactical votes is not to be accountable because you have not been elected out of popularity but instead fear of the alternative.

To have been accountably elected means that the voters had a full opportunity to refuse you and you have not been elected as the least bad of a (falsely) limited number of options. To have been elected tactically is to have been elected only because people did not have a wider choice. If the voters do not have a full choice then we cannot say that the representatives are fully accountable.

First past the post is not conservative

If the state is bad then democracy will enable the people to protect themselves from the state. In this sense democracy is conservative because to be conservative is to constrain the interventionist nature of the state. The people (when given the opportunity) will tend to block and obstruct the state where it is being criminal.

Anarchy is not criminal and so then democracy is both virtuous and conservative.

It is for this reason that the Conservative party are being inconsistent in their support for the first-past-the-post system. Fptp is not conservative because it is not as democratic as alternative systems. For the Tories to be consistent would require them to support a reform of the voting system to either proportional representation or direct democracy.

Anarchy is conservative

There is no reason to think that voters who oppose the left are more likely to vote for the Tories or a party of the right if they have only fptp. There is no reason to think that by (apparently) reducing the choice for right-wing voters they will be more loyal to the right. Since socialism is progressive then that which opposes it (democracy) is conservative and then more democratic systems such as pr are more conservative than less democratic systems.

Proportional representation (like direct democracy) is more conservative than first-past-the-post because it makes things more difficult for those in power. To give power to the people is conservative since the people themselves are conservative.

Anarchy is a crime

That which is not valid is a crime and in a liberal society if we are not doing a crime then we are doing something which is valid. If the state is valid then its opposite (anarchy) is not valid. And since to have a state would appear to be a natural function of the need to defend property from criminal individuals and gangs then the state can be valid.

If the state is valid then anything which opposes it and is in conflict with it (for no good reason) is invalid and criminal.

First-past-the-post is in conflict with the state because it is not fully democratic. Proportional representation (like direct democracy) is fully democratic which means that it is not acting in opposition to the state. Since fptp is in conflict with the valid state then it is criminal like all forms of anarchy are criminal.

Anarchy is criminal and first-past-the-post shares properties with anarchy because it is harmful to the state (which is valid).

First past the post protects criminals

We can assume that without a government there will be crime because by definition if crime is prevented by an authority then that authority is the government. Only the government can 'officially' stop crime... if an individual on their own stops crime then this is not inconsistent with anarchy but to have an official body do so is to have a state. The government (democratically elected) is the means by which the people are able to collectively protect themselves from crime. It is as well the means by which the people are able to endorse a police service.

Without democracy and the government (in an anarchist society) it is much easier for criminals and criminal gangs to prosper because the natural defensive and collaborative behaviours of the group are removed. A democratic government is a natural expression of the (peaceful) desires of the group. So without democracy there is less opportunity to prevent crime.

First past the post is much less democratic than other possible forms of democracy and because crime is prevented by democracy this means fptp helps crime. It is worse for criminals if the people are able to fully express their intentions via the ballot box because overwhelmingly they are opposed to crime. They might disagree about some aspects of government policy but they are more-or-less united against crime.

Because first-past-the-post damages democracy and government it damages the ability of the people to prevent crime.

First past the post is similar to anarchy

By definition the state is able to claim any property which it chooses to claim. It is the absolute authority and it defines the law regardless of whatever apparent constraints are placed on the state. Given this fact it is only democracy which is able to constrain the state and hold it to account. Without democracy and the consent of the people the state is able to claim (steal) all of the wealth and property.

If the state chooses to take all the property we can describe this as right-wing even if it claims to be communist or acting in the interests of the people. The state is always right-wing. It is only democracy which legitimises the state and enables the poor to protect themselves from the theft of their property by the state. For the state not to be democratic is a form of theft since the people will seek to protect their property from the state.

First past the post is invalid

If we are not being democratic (and we are a state) then it is possible to own slaves so then we must seek to be democratic at all times. If we form a government without an election then this is totalitarianism and slavery of the people by the state. For the state not to be democratic (which means proportional representation or direct democracy) means that the people are slaves to the state.

We have an obligation not to own slaves which means that if we are the government we must use the most democratic means of accountability possible. For the state to reject the fullest expression of democracy possible (proportional representation) means that the state is failing in it's non-slavery obligations.

First-past-the-post is an invalid voting system for the state to use because we have an obligation not to own slaves.

Freedom comes from the people and not the state

It is inconsistent for freedom to be imposed on the people without their consent and such freedom is not true freedom. The notion of a benign dictator who imposes freedom on the people (whether they like it or not) is false because if the state is unaccountable there cannot be freedom. And if the state is imposing freedom on the people with their consent then the state is not required.

The notion of first-past-the-post democracy works on the assumption that we only seek to choose the best candidate and not that which has our interests at heart. Since there can be internal conflict within a nation we need pr so that internal property claims can be reflected in government. Without pr it is likely that both of the candidates on offer share a view on many things which the voters do not agree with. Since if the government and the voters disagree (there is not full democracy) this is always to the detriment of freedom then fptp is to the detriment of freedom.

Freedom comes from the people and not the state and it is for this reason that anarchy is consistent with liberty (and not crime). Since freedom comes from the people then the most direct and proportional voting systems will lead to the most liberal states. If democracy is suppressed as with fptp then there will be less freedom.

First past the post is a form of taxation

If the people are bad and the purpose of the government is to protect the people from themselves then democracy is inconsistent. If the people as a whole are good (as we must assume) then it makes sense for the government to be as democratic as possible unless it seeks to oppress the people and do harm.

Since it is the non-government part of the economy which is economically productive then the state derives all of its wealth from the people. If the people are distinct from the state it is not the state which creates wealth but the people and so a lack of democracy is a subsidy for the state since the state gets its wealth from the people. Non-democracy unites the state and the people more than would be the case in a more democratic system and so then we can think of it as a tax since with democracy the productive people would likely disengage themselves from the state.

To unite the state and the people is a form of taxation because it is the people who are economically productive and not the state which means first-past-the-post is a form of taxation.

First past the post is economically left wing

There is no reason for the electorate to be economically to the left of the government because it is the government which spends the money. Governments (especially when they are undemocratic) are economically to the left of the voters and it is for this reason that democracy (which brings the government closer to the people) is liberal. Democracy (where there is a state) is good for the economy because the people will never want a more economically interventionist government than the government itself wants. It is not the case that the government is reticent to tax the people and provide public services in the face of encouragement from the people. Democracy gives the people an opposing veto against the state. Democracy is only bad for the state and the state would become larger without it.

Democracy is economically liberal which means that any party which opposes democracy and proportional representation (where fptp is in use) is economically conservative and interventionist. The opposite of liberalism is conservatism and so economic conservatism is the same as communism. The two main parties which oppose pr are then protecting the state from liberalism which means they are to the left of the people.

The people are economically liberal in the main which means that any system which is less democratic than proportional representation is to the left and bad for the economy. The two main parties which support fptp are to the left of the people since even if the people are pretty left-wing the government will always be more interventionist than the people and so then democracy leads to liberalism (in contrast to the state).

Voters are to the right of the Labour party

There is an argument which goes that since the voters are in the main illiberal and ill-informed then to have democracy is not a good idea and this (so the argument goes) supports fptp. The voters, it is implied, can't really be trusted with democracy and as a consequence of this first-past-the-post is a suitable compromise because there is some democracy but not entire democracy.

The flaw in this argument is that fptp does not eradicate democracy entirely (even if that is a good thing which I have not accepted) we still get a government derived from the election and the choice is narrowed to a two-party system. Governments formed by fptp are not guaranteed to be liberal in fact more often then not at least in recent times it is the Labour party who have been successful. This means that unless the general body of voters is to the left of the Labour party fptp is delivering Labour governments which are to the left of the typical voter.

The first-past-the-post system does not impose liberalism on the people because there remains some choice even if that choice is reduced to a two-party split. Only if Labour are to the right of the general voter would it be possible to argue that fptp is imposing liberalism on an unwilling people. If that is not the case then fptp is reducing choice and limiting a liberal (to the right of Labour) electorate to choosing the least bad of Labour and the Tories. If voters are to the right of Labour then pr is to be preferred because under fptp Labour generally do well.

Voters are to the right of Labour but with fptp Labour generally get in which means fptp governments are to the left of pr governments.

The government are not concerned about democracy

It is unlikely that either of the main parties protected by the first-past-the-post system will seek to replace the system. Both Labour and the Conservative party do well from fptp and so then it is unduly optimistic to expect a change from them. It is only if the voters themselves decide that they can no longer tolerate the two-party system that there is an opportunity of reform. But this means many voters wasting their vote by voting for small protest parties for perhaps many elections. In effect these voters will be defaulting on the status quo, the main parties will feel abandoned and yet might not be able to determine the true cause of the apparent voter malaise. But the reason will be that voters are no longer able to tolerate the two-party system which ignores their interests.

There is no way for the voters to force this issue other than supporting the smaller protest parties. There is no dialogue which will convince the establishment that they are doing harm because the establishment is self-selecting. If someone thinks you are their property then nothing other than force will dissuade them and the government is the most powerful organisation so the government cannot be persuaded that they are not the rightful owner of the people unless through the ballot box. It is only through the ballot box that fptp can be changed and this will require people being so frustrated that they are willing to throw their vote away... perhaps for generations.

It is likely to take a long time for the people to default on the first-past-the-post state.

Anarchists prefer proportional representation to fptp

In general anarchists would claim that since the government is unpopular and that (in contrast) freedom is popular then democracy is bad for the government and so it is good. Democracy (and proportional representation) is objectively good because if there is not democracy there will be a greater amount of state control. To be free from the state the people need to have the power of democracy which is best ensured with a proportional system. If the system is not proportional the state is able to coalesce around (what becomes) the centre ground leaving the people with little choice and little ability to constrain the state. First-past-the-post gives the state the ability to reject the people's wishes because it constrains their democratic rights under the state.

First-past-the-post is worse for anarchists than pr.

Democracy is not a natural right since anarchy is true

We have a right to exclude anyone from our personal space otherwise there are no meaningful rights. To have 'rights' is to have the right to exclude others from something or somewhere.

If there is a state then the voters have the right to exclude the state from where they do not want it to be by using democracy. Democracy gives the people the ability to exclude and remove the state. But if we treat the state as nothing special and assign to it no special powers then it is strange that the state grants democracy. It is not normal for typical individuals and institutions to hold elections, the state is unique in this regard. And if the state has no special qualities above a normal institution (as an anarchist would claim) then to have democracy is an anomaly and voters have no rights to an election.

Fptp is fine if one of the main parties is liberal

At an election we have the chance to choose a representative to vote on our behalf but we are also choosing a government which has legal powers over us. The government, if it means anything, has superior legal powers to the rest of the population otherwise all legislation from the government could be rejected by the people rendering it meaningless.

Given that to vote is to choose a master, voters will be motivated to vote for the most lenient and least oppressive (the least expensive) candidate available. If there is a broad choice of candidate then it is possible for voters to choose candidates which will be very liberal and have almost no negative bearing on the lives of the people. But if choice is reduced via the first-past-the-post voting method then voters are likely to waste their vote if they do not vote for one of the established candidates. The least bad of many options is much less bad than the least bad of merely two (or three).

More choice leads to less government but even if we can only choose from between just two candidates (as is often the case with fptp) it is still, at least theoretically, possible to choose a liberal candidate. A two-party system does not make it impossible for liberals to get into power. So the problem with a two-party system is caused only by the two parties on offer being bad, for example if one of the parties is religious and seeks to impose its non-scientific view of the world on the people then this is objectively bad and voters will find it difficult to support that party leaving them with only one (meaningful) party to vote for. But this lack of choice is not the fault of fptp itself the blame (if there is blame) lies with the parties which are favoured by fptp. Fptp is not objectively bad because lack of choice is not objectively bad (we could be offered absolute freedom without an election and this would be good), fptp is bad only if (one or) both of the favoured parties is bad. If one of the main parties is (genuinely) liberal then voters have a suitable choice and there is no problem with fptp.

If one of the main parties is electable then there is no problem with fptp.