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.

Proportional representation is good for the voters

It is unlikely that the government withholds socialism from a socialist people because even if the people benefit from socialism the government will benefit more. Socialism is better for no one than the government. So then we can assume that democracy (giving the people a voice) tends to work against socialism because the interests of the voters will be less aligned with socialism than those of the state. The state tends to be more socialist than the people which is why democracy is liberating and communists generally oppose democracy.

Liberal voters have an interest in increasing democracy where it is suppressed because of course voters want more democracy by definition. The opportunity to refuse something even if it is the government is always welcome and so voters like democracy. But (from above) democracy tends to be more liberating than non-democracy so voters are more liberal than the government. Given this fact it is more liberal to have as much democracy as possible which means the rejection of the first-past-the-post system in favour of pr.

Proportional representation is more liberal and since voters are liberal (compared to the government) then pr is good for the voters.

Labour are on the right and the Tories are on the left

In the general population many more people are right-handed than left-handed which may explain why the political right are associated with strength and the left with weakness. But in a political context it is the parties of the left who have more strength given their association with populism and democracy. Democratic collectivism will always be more strong than concepts associated with the right such as social conservatism and religion.

Given the above it is inconsistent for the left (the Labour party in the UK) to be associated with the 'left' and they should be referred to as the right. The Labour party are correctly described as being on the right and the Tories on the left.

Proportional representation is left wing

Property rights must be democratic to be legitimate. For the state to exist and to impose property rights and claims on the people without their consent is illegitimate and authoritarian. The people have a right to hold the government to account and define property rights. If the property rights are not acceptable to a majority of the people then they have no legitimacy.

If the state fails to accept the greatest possible amount of democracy (proportional representation) then it is being authoritarian and illegitimate even if it is not actively aggressive. The mere act of defending unpopular property claims is an act of arrogance and aggression against the people. The state has no property if it is not acceptable to the people.

The state has no right to impose property claims without the consent of the people.

In a two-party system anarchy is left wing

If we are a victim of crime then we have a choice whether or not to respond to it. If we do not respond then it is likely that the crime will be repeated. If we respond then we are defining our property rights with force and we can describe this as defensive force. When a criminal is arrested and placed in prison then the society is reacting to the aggressive crime.

This applies also in an election where we might seek to resist a party which we find to be very offensive. If we consider them (the party) criminal then to vote to oppose them might be considered to be an act of justice and law-and-order.

An anarchist views all government and all political parties as criminals since they are opposed to the concept of government. A democrat will take a similar view with regard to non-democratic political parties such as those who promote first-past-the-post. So for democrats to vote to reject fptp is an act of justice and to fail to do this is to be remiss in our peaceful obligations.

Anarchists have a preference for democracy since democracy is bad for the state so then an anarchist will seek to block first-past-the-post where possible. Because the Tory party is more closely associated with fptp than Labour then in a two-party system it is the Labour voters who are being more democratic and more anarchist. In a two-party system it is the Labour voters who are the anarchists not the Tories because Tories are more closely associated with the anti-democratic fptp voting system. The Labour party are a more recent phenomenon.

Democracy is a natural right

We have a natural right to property (including our own bodies) whether or not there is a state. Our rights exist whether there is a state or not. It is not from the state that we derive our rights and so then it is a crime for people to be aggressive towards our property whether or not this is against the law. Equally the state can do a crime against our property and it is not above the law... even if the law gives it impunity. If we are the state or not we must listen to and be respectful of the property claims of other people. They have rights even if the state does not recognise them. If we are a government which doesn't use the most democratic and accountable method of selection then we are not listening to the people who have a right to be listened to. We are being aggressive if we are not being democratic and democracy (to have our property claims respected) is a natural right.

Non-democracy is a crime.

To use the first-past-the-post method of voting is to disregard the opinions of the people which (in the context of government and property rights) is a violation of their rights. Not to give (innocent) people a right to refuse your property claims is a crime.

There is no state so first past the post is not arrogant

If you have a winner-takes-all election this tends almost always to result in only one winner. This means that it is like a presidential or mayoral system and political systems of this type are often characterised by 'personality politics' and the characteristics of individuals. Elections where a coalition is the likely outcome tend to be more concerned with policy because this is what drives the electorate. A winner-takes-all system has the power to expel the smaller parties from the political process thereby driving out the more engaged voters who have reasons to reject the more popular (and obvious) candidates. The more engaged voters are punished by the first-past-the-post system.

But from an anarchist point of view there is no contradiction in the state doing bad things and not being democratic. Anarchists are generally motivated by a desire for the truth and for justice and human rights. For them it is not a shock to find that the state doesn't seek to be accountable to the people. If the state is bad (for the people) then of course it will reject democracy where it can. So then there is no contradiction (for anarchists) when the government retains fptp and rejects proportional representation or direct democracy. It would be a contradiction for good and popular people to reject being accountable but for the state it is not so unexpected. If the state is good then it will seek to be accountable and democratic but the state is not good... which means that fptp is not inconsistent. It is hard to argue against fptp because to do so assumes the legitimacy of the state which is a rhetorical error. First-past-the-post is not arrogant and so then it is not funny because it contains within it no false assumptions. Fptp does not assume the state is more important than the people it merely assumes that the state doesn't want to be accountable... which it doesn't. To assume the state is malign is not a contradiction (in fact it is consistent and true). To assume that fptp is amusing (arrogant) or inconsistent assumes that the state is real and has a right to exist. Fptp is amusing only if the state is real which it isn't so then there is no joke to be made about fptp and we must endure it. In fact it is a form of statist arrogance to assume that fptp might be amusing (and arrogant).

First past the post is bad for the poor

The reality of the two-party system is that people vote Labour to protect themselves from the rich Tories. They are not voting to oppress the Tories or to oppress the rich but merely in response to the winner-takes-all system. It is not surprising that the poor are not interested in voting for the Tories in a two-party system since the Tories continue to subsidise the rich.

The Labour party are a reaction to first-past-the-post and not an advocate of it. Historically speaking the Labour party emerged long after the two-party fptp system had been put into place. The Labour party (and their voters) cannot be accused of aggression given that they did not implement the system. They are merely protecting themselves from the Tories and the rich.

But if the two-party system offers no economically liberal party for the poor to vote for (hence the rise of Labour) then clearly it has failed the poor. That the poor must (generally) vote for Labour... they are trapped into voting Labour... establishes that the two-party system doesn't work for the poor and that fptp is bad for the poor. A proportional system would be much better for the poor because it would give the poor an alternative to the Labour party... because the Labour party do not seem very interested in learning about economics. The liberation of the poor will not be accomplished by (government) economic collectivism instead it will be achieved by removing subsidies from the rich which is not being offered by the Labour party (or the Tory party). So then the poor will only be liberated if the voting system changes to a proportional system.

First past the post subsidises (political) aggression

Tactical voting is oppressive because it involves blocking the opposition party as opposed to simply voting for the preferred choice. There is an element of voting in response to the behaviour of others with tactical voting which is not present in a (liberal) proportional system. With a liberal democracy people can just vote for the party of their choice without consideration to how others will vote. This is a better system because it means (whilst voters are protected) people who seek to be aggressive are not subsidised by the system. First-past-the-post creates an artificial war between the left and the right which means that people who find this behaviour acceptable are subsidised by the system. A liberal system would not subsidise political aggression as fptp does.

Labour win at first past the post

Whilst it is true that if the Tories receive a landslide victory under fptp then to have pr would make little difference since the Tories would still be in power. But if to remove fptp would make a difference then it can only be to the benefit of the people since democracy itself is liberating and good for the people.

To claim that first-past-the-post makes no difference to the outcome of an election is to deny the existence of the Labour party who are considered to be the official opposition to the Tories. Labour often win and even if they don't win they receive very many votes many of which are cast in a 'tactical' fashion. For the Labour party to be in receipt of tactical votes means that a left-wing party is getting more votes than it would do with a proportional system which in itself is a problem for economic liberals. We can assume that the Labour party would do much less well with a proportional system and they would be replaced with a party approximating to the Liberal Democrats. So then fptp subjects the country to more economic collectivism than pr would. Tories who continue to support fptp in light of this fact (that it helps Labour) either do not have the interests of the country in mind or they deny that Labour do well (and beat the Tories) with fptp.

First-past-the-post is hurtful to the country because party loyalty is more of an anathema to liberals than to socialists. Fptp is better for Labour than the Tories so either the Tories are in denial of this fact or they don't care because they don't care about the fortunes of their own country.

Labour do better than the Tories under fptp so then fptp results in more economic collectivism than would be the case with a proportional system. The Tories either deny the fact in the preceding sentence (that Labour win at fptp) or they knowingly hate their own country.

Anarchy is better than first past the post

The only valid form of government is democracy and only a proportional system (of representation) can be said to be democratic. If the government is not democratic then it is criminal in the same way that totalitarianism is criminal. The government is criminal if it is not (proportional and) democratic. And since anarchy is preferable to being the victim of a crime then to have no government is preferable to one which does not use proportional representation. A government which uses first-past-the-post is worse than no government at all.

Civilisation requires democracy and property rights

Without property rights freedom and civilisation becomes impossible because there is no way to determine who owns what. So then given that property rights are a prerequisite for civilisation then anarchy is inconsistent with civilisation if the word anarchy means only to be absent of a state. If anarchy means only that there is no absolute authority (and there can be a state) then democracies can be consistent with anarchy.

Property rights require the consent of the group to recognise the rights of other people. Property rights are by nature a collectivist and social characteristic. Without other people there would be both no requirement for property rights and also no possibility of them. To have property rights means that your claim will be validated and recognised by a third party which is in itself a kind of socialism. Without other people there can be no property rights.

Without the state there can be no civilisation because it would be impossible to have property rights and since to have a state without democracy is impossible we deduce that without democracy property rights (and civilisation) are impossible. Civilisation requires democracy and the state. But the first-past-the-post system is not proportional and so voters are not being respected by the state which is a form of totalitarianism which then shares qualities with anarchy. Totalitarianism is similar to anarchy because there are no valid property rights and no valid state. Only a proportional voting system yields government and property rights. Without pr there is no government and as a consequence no freedom.

Freedom is impossible without proportional representation.