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.