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.