First past the post serves to exacerbate plutocracy

As has been mentioned before on this blog, there can be a problem when the power of a country is controlled by too few people and one of those problems is that it becomes easy for the rich to buy political power. This is only one of the many problems of a political system which is controlled by too few people, and to remedy these problems we have democracy. But as we have seen, with a first-past-the-post system, we tend to see the emergence of a small number of parties so the advantages of democracy in sharing power are lost. First-past-the-post is fundamentally undemocratic and so this results in a government which has none of the virtues of democracy, principally being accountable to the people.

If we assume that where the left-right dynamic is concerned that the right-wing party is the party of the rich then it falls to the party of the left to protect the voting public. So then if the right do not mind very much that the fptp voting system tends to favour only a small number of parties, the only chance for the rest of the population to protect itself from government-by-the-rich is the party of the left, in the UK this is the Labour party. If the Tories support fptp then it is unlikely that the rich will buy any change in this policy (since it makes the government easier to buy) and only Labour can do anything about it. As a consequence of this, Labour have a responsibility and an obligation to the voting public to offer an alternative to fptp, they have an obligation to offer and demand proportional representation, or a similarly democratic system which is not fptp. If Labour do not do this they are failing in their obligations as a left-wing party.

There is no a priori reason to exclude smaller parties

No one could object that the winner of an election should get some power but we might argue against that person getting all the power. Part of the problem when arguing against the first-past-the-post system is that this term doesn't include a description of the problem, namely that the winner gets all of the power not that the winner gets some of the power. We would not object to the winner getting some power but we might argue for some of the other candidates also getting power. An alternate term for this system sometimes used is winner-takes-all and this gets closer to the nature of the problem. We might propose a third title; first-takes-all, which might get closer to highlighting the problem.

It is against the principles of democracy for smaller, minority candidates and parties to be ignored by the system so then fptp is anti-democratic which makes no sense in a voting system, which we would expect to be democratic. No state has the right to oppose democracy. We might argue that democracy itself is not a right, and there is some truth to this but then for the state to replace democracy with something else is never a right, and the state in doing this is acting criminally. To replace proportional representation with anarchy is not a crime but to replace it with something which is not proportional is a crime.

The problem with first-past-the-post is not that the plurality winner attains power, the problem is that only this person gets power. In a democracy there is no justification in excluding less-popular parties from the legislative process, in fact it could be argued that the reason to have democracy to begin with is so that these minority interests and concerns are respected instead of being ignored as they would otherwise.

First past the post tends to result in big government

In any political system the people and parties in power are able to do what they want subject to the constraint of being democratic. This means that (because they are the government) they are able to dictate the law. The law is defined by the government, which means that they are able to appropriate wealth and property if they wish. Elections enable the people to force the government to release money and power back to the people, so if the voting system is inefficient then this process will happen to a lesser degree and the people will be poorer and the government will be richer.

Part of the problem with the first-past-the-post voting system is that it tends to favour just two political parties which means that, in the end, they just compete against each other and not to serve the people. If more parties can win then each party will feel they are being 'attacked' from different directions, but with a two-party system they must worry only about what the opposition is offering to the people. So if there is less competition for the political parties in an election this is bad for democracy and will result in more poverty for the people as the state appropriates power (relatively) unchecked. To mitigate against this process it is possible to ensure that smaller, minority parties have a better chance and this means altering the system to get something close to proportional representation.

First-past-the-post tends to result in big government whereas proportional representation puts more pressure on the political parties which means a smaller state and more prosperity for the voting public.

Without democracy there can be no property

To have property requires democracy because without the right to vote you have no ability to protect yourself from the government. And since property is a natural right then democracy too is a natural right. Democracy is a natural right because property is a natural right and without democracy there can be no property.

For the government not to be arbitrary requires that it seeks a mandate from the people, via an election and this is democracy. If the state doesn't enable the people to hold it to account then it is not a valid government and it is a tyranny. There is no valid government which doesn't use democracy. But we might ask if all types of democracy and election are the same... if voters cannot cast their votes in a 'naive' fashion then they might be encouraged to vote tactically which is a problem for the voters and is not full democracy. Only full democracy validates the state and we cannot describe first-past-the-post as full democracy. To have full democracy requires proportional representation otherwise the voter is not able to have their intentions reflected in parliament.

As an aside we note that since referendums are by nature proportional (each vote is equal) then direct democracy (in the form of government by referendums) falls into the category of proportionally-elected government.

Government is not valid if it is not democracy and if the government is not valid we can say that it is illegal, since the government must be lawful as it is the solitary body which defines the law. If the government is invalid it is illegal and so then any government which doesn't use pr is illegal and we can say that (government by) fptp is illegal. If the state is not held accountable proportionally then it is illegal and fptp doesn't provide legal constraint on the government. The government is insufficiently constrained if a form of direct democracy or proportional representation is not used.

Democracy is better than first past the post

Part of the reason governments use democracy is that the people will not tolerate them if they do not use democracy so democracy is not popular with the state, necessarily. The people tolerate the presence of the state only if it is at least partially democratic and the reason that democracy is desired by the people is that it is anti-authoritarian. The people want democracy because it is, to a degree, like anarchy in that the government is not the arbitrary source of authority, the people can sometimes reject the government. So the government is forced to be in some sense anarchist because the people will not otherwise tolerate it.

Democracy is like anarchy but the first-past-the-post system is not fully-democratic and as a result it is only partially anarchist, and partially authoritarian. The people have been tricked we might say by accepting fptp given that the people demand anti-authoritarian democracy. The people have been convinced by the government that fptp is like anarchy when it is not. The government too, to a degree, think that fptp is anarchist and so then they deduce that the extent of freedom being given by the government is what the people want. The government, since they think fptp is anarchy, deduce that the people do not want more freedom than is being offered by fptp when in fact this is not the case and fptp is oppressive. The people want as much freedom as democracy allows but fptp is only slightly democratic, not fully-democratic and so then the people are oppressed by the absence of full democracy.

Democracy is consistent with Toryism

Given that democracy enables the people to protect themselves from the state it is inconsistent for a party of the right to reject democracy. Democracy is consistent with freedom and liberty, both concepts associated with the right, or perhaps if not with the right then not with the left.

It makes no sense for conservatives and Tories to reject proportional representation (as they often do) when we consider the reality of democracy as a liberating force, unless the Tories reject freedom. If the right is in favour of freedom then we would expect them to support (the extension of) democracy wherever possible, unless democracy is harmful to freedom. If democracy is not harmful to freedom then real Tories and real conservatives support democracy.

Anarchy is not better than democracy

The nature of reality is that statelessness is impossible because when there is no central government gangs, or brigands will emerge. There can never be true anarchy (in the sense of statelessness) although there can be anti-authoritarianism if democracy allows this.

The least bad form of government is democracy because the alternative is totalitarianism which means the government faces no constraints on its power and unconstrained government power will lead to despotism. So democracy is the least bad form of government and anarchy will lead to brigandism so then if this is a kind of government itself (and anarchy is impossible) then democracy is the least bad state of affairs.

There will always be a state or central authority of some kind, whether legal or illegal and we might as well resign ourselves to the fact that democracy is the least bad state of affairs and that anarchy is impossible.

Democracy is certainly the least bad form of government but it is also the least bad state of affairs given that there can never be genuine anarchy... there will always be some emergent group of outlaws who will take control and this will become a government. Because government is inevitable it is always better to have democracy than any other kind of government and nothing is better than democracy.

Proportional (popular) representation is not left wing

Part of the problem with a first-past-the-post voting system is that (if we assume the emergence of a two-party system) voters on the right must be loyal to the established party to keep out the party of the left. In the UK, people must vote for the Tory party in order to block the party of the left, the Labour party. This might not seem too much of a problem if voters do not mind voting for the Tory party but this might not be appealing to many people, to begin with there is a kind of monopoly being established if there is only one party centre-right voters can choose.

The conventional thinking is often that the same applies on the left, non-Tory voters are compelled to vote for the Labour party and because this effect is symmetrical there is nothing to be concerned about and the problem cancels out. But this is not the correct approach given that people on the left do not mind so much to be forced into voting for a monopolistic party... that is to say that their ideology aligns well with this imposition. It is not a contradiction for the left to be expected to remain loyal to (and vote for) only one party. It is voters on the right who are more rebellious and will be less inclined to vote for the party which they are expected to vote for.

Democracy is intended to weaken the state otherwise it serves no purpose so then the most effective kind of democracy is that which is bad for the state and hence bad for the left. If voters are given more choice this is bad for the left even if a preponderance of the voting public are on the left. The reason is that voting and elections will always constrain the state even if a large state is popular... if the voting public are left-wing then the absence of elections would lead to even more government and totalitarianism. Just because voters seem to be left-wing doesn't mean that democracy is left-wing because the state might be even more totalitarian in the absence of democracy.

Democracy is efficient if it protects the people from the government which means to protect the people from the left. All state oppression is left-wing so then the best (and most democratic) voting system is that which gives the voter the greatest possible ability to reject the state. We know that there are many people who do not like either of the main two parties and since these 'rebellious' votes are lost then the system is protecting the state. If rebellious votes are lost then this is to the advantage of the state and this means that the system is left-wing.

First past the post is dangerous

The danger of not having democracy is that the state (being unchecked) is able to expand indefinitely, which will lead to universal poverty. For the state not to be checked by democracy is very dangerous for the people because it will expand forever. Without a democratic check on democracy the state will consume everything which is why democracy is important.

When the first-past-the-post system is used this is partly democratic but not full democracy and once the centre-right party is no longer widely-supported it tends to a one-party state of the left. Historically, people have voted for the centre-right party in a two-party system because that party is more closely aligned with the church, but as this becomes less important for people, then fptp becomes like a one-party state. One-party totalitarianism is a threat to he survival of the people because when the state is unchecked it consumes everything and there is no material wealth. When the centre-right party is no longer widely supported fptp becomes more like a one-party totalitarian state which is dangerous.

Fptp favours the state because it favours the big two

The essential problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it tends to encourage a two-party system due to tactical voting. Voters know that only voting for parties which will do well is worthwhile and so they will not consider the minority parties and this feeds on itself to the point where there are very few parties remaining, usually two. So a multi-party system becomes a two-party system under first-past-the-post.

Defenders of this system (usually from one of the favoured parties) will claim that to favour bigger parties is not to favour the state and so fptp is not anti-voter it is merely pro the big two parties. It is generally assumed that laws should not be 'statist' (they should not indiscriminately favour the state) but adherents of fptp will say that to favour the big two parties is not to favour the state itself, merely those two parties. But this is wrong because the fptp system converts those two parties into something more important than they would otherwise be. The first-past-the-post system enshrines those two parties into something approximating to the state so the anarchist defence of fptp that the big two are not the state falls down and we can see that fptp favours the state, for the reason that it favours the big two.

First-past-the-post converts typical (but large) parties into something more than that and in fact makes them comparable to the state itself, which means that anti-fptp arguments are anti-state arguments.

Adherents of fptp typically claim that they are not being statist in their preference but this is wrong because they fail to see (are in denial of the truth) that fptp converts normal (anarchist) parties into elements of the state, so to protect the 'big two' is to protect the state.

Proportional representation is liberal

Democracy is good because it is liberal and the opposite of liberalism is criminality. We know that without an element of authoritarianism there is no crime so liberalism is the opposite of crime, which is always authoritarian. If something is not liberal then it is a crime.

So, as far as politics is concerned, we strive for liberalism. It is clear that democracy is always more liberal than its absence because it gives the people over whom the government seeks to rule, the power to replace their leaders with other ones. Democracy, being liberal, is not criminal and anything which stands in the way of democracy is a crime. We know (from earlier) that if democracy is good then pr is good but we can go further by saying that if democracy is liberal then pr is liberal too. And if something is liberal it is to be valued for not being criminal.

Proportional representation is more liberal than first-past-the-post because it is more democratic and democracy is liberal. To be liberal (in a political sense) is objectively good because the opposite involves authoritarianism and as a consequence possible criminality.

First past the post is plutocratic

We can see that democracy is good for the poor because it enables property rights to be determined not only by wealth but also popular opinion. The very rich are threatened by democracy because it means that in theory their wealth can be appropriated by the state, so true democracy is a threat to the rich. If there is a first-past-the-post system then the people do not have true democracy and the very rich are able to retain their wealth.

First-past-the-post is against democracy because it doesn't let the people take power from the establishment and this serves the rich. True democracy would enable the people to redress perceived economic injustices but the presence of the fptp system prevents this and makes sure that the rich retain their wealth.

First past the post is a crime against the state

Without a state we can have no objective property rights, everything would be decided on the basis of willingness and ability of people to defend their property. The advantage of government and democracy is that we have an authority which is able to define the allocation of property so that when a crime occurs it can be identified. Without an objective system of property rights then all crime (and all ownership) becomes merely a matter of opinion and so then there is no meaningful property, which is bad for civilisation and development.

From the above, without a state there is no civilisation because of the absence of objective property rights which means that we can think of the state itself as a right and the property of the people, and any threat to the government is then a crime.

We can think of the first-past-the-post voting system as an assault on the state since it seeks to give a mandate to a government of sorts and yet it is not entirely democratic which means that some voters have been unfairly excluded. Because property rights extend from the (democratic) state then anything which is a threat to the state or seeks to usurp the state (as the fptp system does) is then criminal because it denies property rights. If there is a state (if the state is valid) then property rights are objective and fptp is a crime.

Government by first past the post is authoritarian

The difference between oligarchy and democracy is that with democracy the power is held equally among the people but with oligarchy power is restricted to a small number of people. Part of the problem with oligarchy is that this power which is held by the few can be purchased by the rich who seek to protect their interests so oligarchy tends to result in government by the rich, which is plutocracy. Oligarchies tend to result in plutocracy and this is why democracy is beneficial for the poor whose interests are opposed to those of the rich.

The first-past-the-post voting system is not full democracy and as such it is an oligarchy of the two main parties which will tend to result in plutocracy as the rich will purchase this power held by the two main parties. So we can say that fptp will degenerate from democracy to plutocracy.

Without government there are no objective property rights so it is not easy to envisage a civilised country without some form of a state but not all states need to be authoritarian and so then we can have a state which is consistent with anarchy in the sense of being without authority. If we use the word anarchy to mean only to be without authority then (proportional) democracy is consistent with anarchy. The state becomes authoritarian and opposed to anarchy if it does not use democracy and further if it does not use a proportional (or direct) form of democracy. Anarchists can accept democracy but not democracy which is not proportional, or direct. For this reason first-past-the-post is not anarchist, since it results in oligarchy and plutocracy, but proportional representation is anarchist, if anarchy can accept a non-authoritarian state.

Democracy is not always in opposition to anarchy, provided the voting system is helpful to voters but the first-past-the-post system is unhelpful to voters and as such it is always non-anarchist and therefore it is authoritarian.

Proportional representation gives more reason to vote

If people are not able to vote in a 'naive' way, that is to vote simply for their preferred candidate without having to be concerned about tactical voting, this is helpful to the establishment who want to act against the wishes of the people. Because a non-proportional system protects the state then the state can retain unpopular policies more easily if there is less democracy. If the voting system tends to favour (for example) just two parties then if voters cannot abandon both for a third party, the two parties remaining are able to share policies which they would have to abandon if more choice is given to the voter. First-past-the-post protects politicians from the voters and consequently it protects policies from the voters.

Because first-past-the-post makes it difficult for voters to alter the policies of the government, it reduces the incentive for people to vote and if the main policies which people want to remove are shared by both of the main parties there is no point voting, with a non-democratic system. If there is more democracy there is more reason to vote because it is easier for the people to alter the policies of the government. If there is less democracy, as with fptp, then people will have less incentive to vote. Proportional representation would give people more reason to vote than with first-past-the-post.

Two facts in support of proportional representation

When it comes to democracy there are primarily two competing systems of election, one is the first-past-the-post method and the second is so-called proportional representation. It is possible to have a legislative democracy without representation and this is direct democracy where laws are approved by the people using referendums and not votes in a legislative body. If we consider the first-past-the-post (fptp) system against proportional representation we can see that with the former (fptp) voters who vote for a party which is not expected to do well risk wasting their vote and so tactical voting emerges and is rewarded. This tends to lead to a two-party system with less real choice for voters. We might think it strange that people who accept the use of first-past-the-post (itself a kind of democracy) refuse to accept the use of proportional representation given that fptp inherently recognises the right to democracy. But many people do defend fptp over proportional representation...

To reject proportional representation in favour of first-past-the-post is to be in denial of (at least) one of two facts. Those facts are as follows:

i) That democracy is a good thing and the people should have the right to hold their government to account, via the ballot box.
ii) That proportional representation is more 'democratic' than the first-past-the-post system. And by democratic we mean that it gives voters more control over their representatives, which is the intention of democracy in the first place...

If someone accepts either of these facts then they must deny the other to support their position of opposition to proportional representation (in defence of fptp). If someone recognises that pr is more 'democratic' than first-past-the-post then (to reject pr) they must be of the view that democracy itself is not a good thing. Conversely, if someone likes and accepts the principle of democracy then if they support fptp and reject pr it can only be for the reason that they deny pr is more democratic than fptp.

Proportional representation is logically preferable to first-past-the-post unless one of the two claims above is false, that is to say that if democracy is good and pr is more democratic than fptp then it follows that pr is better than fptp.