The voting system is not important

The method by which the members of a political body are elected doesn't matter too much. We might think that there are obvious and stark differences in how a country is governed depending on whether it uses fptp or pr. But in reality there isn't much difference. The only difference the voting system makes is in determining whom gets to state the law. What is more important is the truth of the law itself. If we agree on what the law should be then we can have little valid complaint over whom it is set by. It doesn't matter who sets the law what matters is the nature of the law itself... in which case the voting system used is not important. Only the laws are important. It doesn't matter which form of democracy is used and it doesn't matter if there is a quasi two-party system in place... provided the laws are fair. Voting doesn't alter the truth and so if the government is wrong and it is open to argument then eventually the truth will emerge. First past the post is not good but it is not objectively wrong.

First past the post is a form of tyranny

It is necessary to have a government because otherwise we can never objectively define property rights which are required for a civilisation. Given that government is necessary and government by anything other than the democratic process is tyranny the only remaining question to ask is 'what is the appropriate voting system to use?'. The answer is a form of proportional representation in contrast to a first-past-the-post system. The reason for this is that with pr voters can get the most choice and the most freedom without the requirement to vote tactically. This is good for the same reasons that democracy is good... it prevents tyranny where the powers of the state are abused. If we are the government we have the unique ability to use force legally. This means that we have a significant obligation to make sure we have given the people the maximum possible freedom and in particular the best and most flexible voting system. To be a true and valid government we must give the people the best possible opportunity to remove us and choose the most suitable representatives for themselves. If we are in government we have an obligation to be humble to the electorate and this is only satisfied if we use a proportional (or similar) system. To use fptp is not deferential to the voter and hence is a form of tyranny in itself.

Some people don't like either of the two main parties

There is no point having democracy and letting people vote if they want to be slaves. We give people a vote because they want to be free and democracy enables the people to choose which politicians will give them the most freedom. First-past-the-post systems tend to result in a two-party system. This is so that (due to the fact that) voters make sure their vote is not wasted by voting for a politician who has no chance of winning. If we assume that people vote for the politicians which will give them the most freedom (democracy is freedom) then if a voter votes 'tactically' then their freedom is being compromised. (And tactical voting is evidence of freedom being oppressed.) It might be the case that by chance the voting public splits exactly into two categories in which case the two-party model might be suitable. However it is much more likely that the people would be best reflected and represented by a plethora of disparate parties... with plenty of choice for the voter at the ballot box. When voting behaviour is altered due to the voting system then we know that the freedoms of the people are being compromised... since we assume in a democracy that people want freedom. The people are needlessly being oppressed by the voting system if voting for their naive (instinctive) choice without the consideration of tactical voting results in less democratic influence. If they must vote tactically and are not otherwise inclined to support either of the two main parties in a fptp system then they are being oppressed by the system. Only someone who 'likes' one of the main parties is not being oppressed by the fptp system. Fptp is oppressive if (some) people do not like at least one of the main parties. If neither of the main parties is appealing to some voters then fptp will be reducing freedom overall.

There is nothing wrong with democracy

Society is a good thing and for that reason it is better to have a proportional voting system so that the people can get what they want. If there is a first past the post (fptp) system in place then the political arena will be dominated by just two parties which leads to many problems perhaps best exemplified by cronyism whereby a small group of people control parliament to their own ends. It is not good for the democratic process to be dominated by two political parties because the government is meant to serve the people and by definition the people are not instinctively aligned to a two-party system. The two-party system emerges due to tactical voting and the reality that the political system is not serving the people. It is because the people are frustrated that they must vote for a party they do not like. Fptp frustrates the voter for no good reason. It is good to have a government because then we have an objective system of property rights and an objective law. Anarchy would entail a collection of businesses and charities seeking to impose their interests on everyone else. Whilst this has a naive appeal in the end we need to have an objective system of law which can have only one source (in each country). Otherwise every argument will find no resolution and there will be no peace. Society provides security which means that without it there would be anarchy... without government there are no rules and there can be no civilisation. It is because society (and government) is good that a proportional system of voting is preferable. Whilst fptp does provide some kind of government it is needlessly frustrating to the people because we end up with a two-party oligarchy whereby the interests of the people are easily ignored. Government with democracy is better than unaccountable government so we can say that pr is preferable to fptp. Democracy is bad only if government is bad which it isn't (it is the only source of objective property rights) so democracy is good and fptp is bad for that reason.

First past the post is not liberal

The previous blog argued that 'first past the post can be more liberal than pr' but this is not true and the error can be seen in the sentence "It is sometimes good to force an unpopular liberalism on the people.". Clearly if the people do not want the liberalism being 'imposed' on them then in a fptp system they can easily reject it by voting for the opposition. It is this element of the fptp system which ensures that it is almost always oppressive. If a form of liberalism is being imposed on the people by the centre-right party the people will be able to reject that liberalism at the ballot box which means that fptp is not able to impose liberalism on the people. In fact fptp is detrimental to liberalism because voters will not be able to reject all forms of illiberalism. With fptp voters choose the party which shares their prejudices but also has prejudices of its own. With pr we get only the prejudices of the voting public but with fptp we get those prejudices as well as those of the ruling elite. If we assume (at least) one party in a fptp system attempts to be liberal then this will appeal to liberal voters but if it is in any way illiberal then it will be offensive to those voters who would have nowhere else to go. For liberalism to work in a fptp system requires that (at least) one party is inoffensive to liberals... if they are slightly offensive then liberals will likely vote to exclude them from office. The liberal (centre-right) party needs to be almost perfect not to offend the liberal base. If they are not they will lose votes to the centre-left party. With a proportional system those liberal voters are not 'lost' to an economically socialist centre-left party but instead those votes remain in the centre ground. Fptp forces liberals to vote for a centre-left (socialist) party because if the alternative is not (close to) perfect they will be unelectable to the liberal mind. Fptp sets too high a bar to reach (makes it too difficult) for the centre-right party to attract the support of liberals. It tends to result in centre-left socialism due to the lack of choice.

First past the post can be more liberal than pr

First past the post is not democratic but perhaps that might not be a bad thing. Fptp provides a type of ruling elite whereby there is an establishment but also there is a degree of movement provided by elections. If we have full democracy (proportional representation) then it is possible for all the stupid ideas held by people to be represented in parliament. Fptp ensures that government is controlled only by a self-selecting group. Whilst this has obvious disadvantages (it is helpful to the rich) it also protects the government (and by extension the law) from populism. If we accept that eventually (all) stupid ideas will be rejected then we are left with the truth (in time) which is how we should be governed. (Ideally we should not be governed.) The problem with democracy is that the electorate can be bigoted and superstitious which can lead to despotism and tyranny. It is sometimes good to force an unpopular liberalism on the people. Since we can't force people to accept a bad idea... we can only challenge wrong ideas then arguing will eventually lead to a kind of agreed nihilism. Ignorance is temporary. Since ignorance is temporary and it is unlikely that the ruling elite will be more bigoted and ignorant than the general population then (until everyone gets enlightened) it is better to have a liberal establishment controlling the country... which is what fptp provides. First past the post can be useful in protecting the people from the stupidity of themselves... it guarantees that the people will not be in control of the government (there will not be true democracy) which is good until the people are enlightened... since the ruling elite will always be more liberal than the people at large. Fptp can be helpful in protecting the people from their prejudices.

Proportionality leads to liberalism

First past the post enables the government to ignore the voter because only votes cast for the major parties have an influence. With proportional representation the government is forced to 'listen' to the people because power is allocated directly in accordance to the number of votes. Proportional representation can generally be achieved if there are numerous representatives in each seat. The problem of fptp arises when there is only one winner and so then tactical considerations arise. There is a close analogy between the government and a court of law. In either case legal force is being used. So then if the government has the power of a court judge (over the people) then we can think of an election as the means by which the people are able to refute the accusations of the judge. The people are able to protect themselves from the government with democracy. If there is less democracy (by extension) the people are less able to protect themselves from the false accusations of the government. The people are more vulnerable to the state if there is less democracy which is why democracy leads to liberalism. First past the post is less liberal because it is less democratic. If the government listens to the people as it must do with a more proportional system then there will be less government and more liberalism. Democracy forces the government to listen to the people.