If there is less democracy then there is more poverty

It is clear that some policies carried out by the government are helpful for the poor, but if there is a two-party system in place then both might not offer those policies.

The common argument against the first-past-the-post voting system is that it results in tactical voting which means that voters must compromise their preferences to ensure their vote matters. If both of the main parties deny good policies to the poor then voters (who want to support the poor) at left choosing between two parties neither of which support the poor. They must merely choose the least bad of the main parties.

An example of a policy which might help the poor is a Universal Citizen's Dividend which would be a fixed amount of money given to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. This is something which would naturally be beneficial to the poor but in a fptp system (for whatever reason) it is rare that either of the main parties support this policy so even if (most) people want it, it will not happen.

Since democracy helps the poor in a positive sense then any oppression of democracy (such as first-past-the-post) is oppressive to the poor, naturally. To oppress democracy is to oppress the poor.