Tories support proportional representation

If we assume that the establishment are fewer in number than can win an election it is apparent that first past the past favours the left. It is a contradiction for the great body of people to vote for the narrow elite and so then fptp will favour populists. Proportional representation in contrast favours no one but the electorate.

People will not vote for the aristocracy and so then it is consistent for everyone on the right to support a fully-democratic system and not fptp. The Tories cannot win with a two-party system because they are perceived as the party of the elite. Since the Tories cannot win with fptp it is important to have proportional representation so that coercive leftists do not gain a monopoly.

Proportional representation is a natural right

If there is a government it has an obligation to use a fair voting system which ensures representation for all voters... which means it must use proportional representation. For a government to fail to use pr is to violate the rights of the people.

The natural rights of the voters have been violated if anything not resembling proportional representation is used.

First past the post is good for no one

There can only be two possible reasons to reject proportional representation in favour of fptp. We can either be of the opinion that (unaccountable) government is good (so we do not want it threatened by democracy) or alternatively we can hold the view that democracy strengthens government and that without democracy to constrain it there would be less government. In the context of choosing between fptp and pr we cannot claim that democracy enhances government because the alternative to pr is not anarchy it is fptp (and fptp does not destroy the government). Fptp is not anarchy so we cannot claim that to reject pr means that there is no government... democracy always provides accountability and reduces government. Since using a fptp system voters still must choose which party they want to win this means that the left can win. Reducing the choice available to simply two parties doesn't encourage liberals to support the Tories. Since (centrist) voters are not coerced into supporting the Tories with a two-party system then fptp can only offend liberal voters which is to the detriment of freedom or be neutral. If voters are generally leftist (and democracy leads to big government) then fptp ensures a Labour victory. If democracy is not synonymous with government then it reduces the government and the only reason to reject it is if we support the Labour party or equivalent.

First past the post can only be harmful because people are not compelled to vote for the Tories in a two party system and it is likely that they will let Labour win. If the people are socialist then fptp will result in a Labour victory and if they are not then we would want to have the most democratic system possible to enable the people to free themselves.

Democracy can never impose freedom on the people... any restriction of choice will lead to bad outcomes because intelligent people are less likely to be willing to be (electorally) coerced into voting tactically so we lose intelligent votes. Nothing can prevent a socialist electorate getting socialism (not even fptp) but forcing liberals to choose between two bad options is harmful. Intelligent people can see that fptp is harmful if the people are liberal but it is not intelligent people who are in control by definition.

The government is unpopular so democracy is good

The oppressive nature of the first past the post voting system must be clearly evident to anyone who has even for a short time examined elections. It is clear that in long-established democracies which use fptp that the system tends to result in the emergence of a two-party system because this maximises the utility of each voter's vote. If someone knowing this still prefers the use of fptp then it can only be because they do not like democracy itself and they wish to (knowingly) oppress voters. Perhaps they think that democracy itself is an invalid concept and that the autocratic government should not be challenged. To know that fptp frustrates the voters and to still endorse it shows that such a person is comfortable to allow the state to reject the views of the people. To accept the truth of Duverger's law and at the same time defend fptp means that such a person is in defence of tyranny. Someone who does not (knowingly) defend tyranny and yet still defends fptp must be in denial of Duverger's law. If someone accepts that fptp tends to result in tactical voting and yet is unperturbed by this fact is someone who is not offended by tyranny. Of all the people who defend fptp it is only those who deny the existence of (the truth of) Duverger's law who are not tyrants. People who defend fptp are tyrants unless they are ignorant of Duverger's law.

Democracy is good and we should have more of it

The government is merely the most powerful collection of people within a geographical area. This means that unless you consider yourself to be part of the government you do not like it. It is for this reason that democracy tends to reduce the size of the state... because most people do not align themselves with the government. So then democracy is the best form of government... there can be no better system (of choosing) because it is the people who most dislike the state... politicians themselves naturally do not dislike the state and so it is only the people (not politicians) who would reject the state.

It is for this reason that a two-party system doesn't serve the interests of the people... because the people do not like the state they want less of it but the smallest of two main parties is still large. The smallest of many parties is much smaller than the smallest of two.

Democracy is the best form of government and its dissemination is to be encouraged wherever there is government and since proportional representation is more democratic than fptp it should be used in preference. It is natural to have a preference for proportional representation because democracy is the means to reduce the size of the state and since more people identify with the people than the politicians democracy reduces the size of the state.

Bad governments use first past the post

The problem with anarchy is that we have no objective means to apprehend criminals. The truly anarchist society would enforce laws via a kind of vigilante system where there is no overall (objective) law-maker. The advantage of government is that no one is more powerful than the government so no one can do a crime against the government (to do so would be a revolution). This means that typical (petty) criminals are not able to exploit their relative power over their victims without being liable for arrest. It is the government which enacts the just law. Since criminal gangs of some kind can be expected to arise in anarchist systems we can see that they are never free from crime and warlordism. Since government prevents warlordism it is good... and if government is good then it is consistent that it use the most democratic system available to it. Since the government is good it would be perverse for it to oppress the people with an undemocratic voting system. It is consistent for the government to use proportional representation since the government is good. We do not have a right to be a government and exclude voters from power using first past the post. Government has no right to use fptp it must use some form of proportional representation.

First past the post is offensive

The nature of property rights is that they are antagonistic. Where there is a property dispute there will be opposing sides who each claim to own a piece of property. If people agree on the correct ownership of property there is no dispute of course. If the role of government is at least in part concerned with arranging the internal property of a country (and not only concerned with external affairs) then we see why proportional representation is favourable. Without proportional representation (pr) elections will tend to devolve into a two-party system which doesn't allow people to truly express their view on internal property. If both of the main parties are incorrect in their assessment of particular property claims then there will be no form of redress available to the voter. If there is proportional representation then property claims of many different types can be reflected in parliament.

Crime is invisible if it is not recognised by at least one of the two main parties in a fptp system. Democracy is a tool against crime and if we have the fullest expression of democracy then we will have the least amount of crime. People do not like crime but if there is insufficient democracy available to the people then the government will often fail to apprehend the criminals and they will go free. Democracy enables the people to reject crime but if there is not enough democracy this mechanism is oppressed.

People like freedom because it is the opposite of crime so then if we oppress democracy we oppress freedom.