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.