First past the post is ineffective

In a previous blogpost I made the comparison between first-past-the-post voting and Sophie's choice whereby we are given a choice between two unpalatable options. Whilst there is some truth to this comparison it is flawed in certain respects. The difference in nature between Sophie's choice and fptp is that with fptp we want to retain neither of the options available. With Sophie's choice she likes both of the options and so to (choose to) reject one of them is painful. With fptp we are forced into retain one of a pair of things we do not like.

We can deduce from this that people do not like either of the fptp parties. (So it would make sense for an anti-statist to be in favour of replacing this system.) If a voter tolerates (or even positively likes) one of the two parties then fptp is not offensive for them. If both of the parties are aggressive then we have a problem for the voter. It is not so bad to have fptp if we are a country in peril from an external threat. In that situation we simply choose the most impressive of the candidates. If the threat is internal and the threat is the government itself then fptp fails because it offers us only two choices both of which (will likely*) share the same problem of internal aggression. If both of the parties on offer are equally aggressive in terms of (for example) taxation then fptp offers no choice to the voter and enables the government to be tyrannical. As far as internal threats are concerned fptp is not very effective at constraining government because both of the two main parties will tend to be similar in terms of taxation. Fptp is ineffective against taxation... and since taxation defines government we can say that fptp is ineffective... against government. Fptp doesn't work because tax is government.

*If one party is not aggressive then fptp is not a problem.

Only proportional representation is not aggressive

Anything other than using proportional representation is aggressive where elections are concerned. First past the post is an aggressive attack on peace and security. Only proportional representation is not aggressive where voting systems are concerned.

Fptp is a violation of the rights of the electorate

No government has a right to seek a mandate via first past the post... proportional representation is the only legitimate electoral system a government can use. No state has a right to use fptp.

First past the post is a form of insanity

It is true that democracy is good

First past the post prevents freedom which means that people who like fptp are people who instinctively dislike freedom. Whether or not someone likes fptp is a good barometer to find out if they are liberal or socialist. Socialists like fptp because it prevents freedom. Pr is good for capitalism and the free market... fptp is good for people who are communists and want to oppress freedom. It is true that pr protects capitalism and prevents tyranny. Democracy is the only thing which protects the people from tyranny by the government... if there is a government. So a democratic system lacking in proportionality will be vulnerable to socialism.

First past the post prevents freedom

First past the post removes the option typically available to voters to choose to have no government at all. (It is possible to vote for an anarchist.) If one of only two political parties can win it means that both of these parties will be statist parties. Statists will inevitably control the two dominant parties in a fptp system. To give voters pr is to enable them to choose to have no government. Pr gives people the option to reject government... which fptp does not. Proportionality can mean anarchy but fptp always means statism. There is no possibility of freedom if there is not proportional representation. Only pr offers freedom. There is no chance for freedom with fptp.

Fptp forces voters into a kind of Sophie's choice

Most people do not want to be controlled by the government so we can assume democracy is anti-government and liberating. If it is not then it is redundant. To the extent that democracy is not redundant it is liberating. The problem with fptp is that people who want to protect capitalism must support the Tories which is impossible for moral people. Fptp forces people to allow Labour to win or be immoral. (To vote for the Tories is immoral.) Pr means that moral people can protect capitalism. Religious people like fptp because it forces people who are liberals and who reject communism to support a party which tolerates religion. Fptp forces anti-socialist people to vote for a religious (immoral) political party. Only religious people prefer fptp to pr. To not reject religion is immoral so fptp is liked only by immoral people. Religious people find fptp amusing because it forces good people to choose between communism and religion. We can think of this as a kind of 'Sophie's Choice' where neither of the options given is palatable.