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.