First past the post is not beneficial

One of the aspects of the first-past-the-post system is that, in response, voters tend to vote for the more established parties because they know votes for smaller parties will be wasted. Over time only two parties have any realistic chance of winning and we have a two-party system as described by Duverger's law. And the reason for this is that the interests of the voters are with themselves not the government, they favour themselves as voters over the state so they will vote 'tactically' to protect themselves from what they perceive to be the least bad of two imperfect options; they don't like either so they vote for the least bad, not wanting to waste their vote.

The emergence of tactical voting is to be welcomed (at least from the anti-state point of view) because it indicates that the people value self-ownership and are opposed to the state in general.

We can think of anarchy to be the truest and most extreme form of representative democracy, whereby each person votes for themselves. In a traditional referendum the electorate is asked to vote directly on laws without a parliamentary representative voting on their behalf. Anarchy is not inconsistent with democracy because people, overall, are opposed to the state, despite how things might appear.

Given the choice people will vote for freedom so any system which opposes voters (such as first-past-the-post) is unhelpful to freedom. Proportional representation enables people to vote for (their) freedom and so it provides more freedom than fptp. The opposite of freedom is statism so we can say that first-past-the-post is statist and that pr is aligned with freedom and anarchy.

If we accept that there is no left-wing without the state (that the left requires the state) then all things which are left-wing are also statist. An earlier blog has argued that first-past-the-post is left-wing and so if the left is always statist then fptp is not only left-wing but it is also statist.