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.