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.