Proportional representation is liberal

There is no reason to reject democracy since the purpose of democracy is to legitimise the state. If the state seeks to remain legitimate then it must accept democracy and if the state doesn't use a proportional system then it can be more legitimate by changing the voting system. We expect the state to seek to be legitimate and so then it is consistent for the state to use pr. The only reason to use fptp is if the state is in conflict with the interests of the people (which it should not be). First-past-the-post is bad for liberal voters and since the purpose of democracy is to give a voice to the liberal electorate then fptp is inconsistent. We want liberals to be heard and represented and so then we must only use proportional representation. If we do not use pr then liberals have been excluded from the state which is wrong and a contradiction because the state must be liberal.

It is a crime to use first past the post

In any non-tyrannical society we assume that the innocent are given their freedom. This is what it means to live in a free society. This means that the government doesn't have the right to arbitrarily imprison individuals. But if there is not democracy then we can think of the people as being oppressed (since the state is then arbitrary) and we do not have a free society. To have a free society which is not anarchist requires democracy. But some forms of democracy are more liberal than others and it can be shown that proportional representation enables the voter to better express their preferences. If there is a winner-takes-all system voters must consider voting tactically since few parties have a realistic chance of success. So then we can see or it can be shown that pr is more liberal and at least there is no strong argument to show that it is illiberal. If there is no evidence to show that proportional representation is worse and more oppressive than fptp it should be adopted based on the principle of free-unless-guilty. If some people want to do something or to use a particular method of voting then in a liberal society they are permitted to do so unless there can be found evidence of harm or the risk of harm. Since there is no evidence of harm associated with pr (many peaceful countries use it) then in a liberal society it would be adopted. The rejection of a liberal voting system for which there is no evidence of harm demonstrates an illiberal society. Since there is no evidence against pr any country which refuses to adopt it is illiberal and totalitarian.

Democracy is liberal and peaceful

It is strange for a party such as the Tory party (which claims to be anti-socialist) to support a voting system which gives people less choice. The reason to have democracy is to make sure that the state is not oppressing the people so then democracy itself is liberal and anti-socialist. The reason for a political party to reject democracy is so that the state can retain power against the wishes of the people (by definition anti-liberal). What the people want is liberalism or there would be no argument in favour of democracy... democracy is by definition liberal and to oppose it is always illiberal and totalitarian. Only an interventionist government would seek to reject democracy since democracy is liberal and peaceful.

First past the post is synonymous with government

In a two-party system there can be an inclination to vote for one of the leading parties in the hope of making sure the opposite party is kept from power. In a sense (because power is derived from government) we are using the democratic process to 'punish' the opposition party since for them to be in power is an affront to us. But we might conclude that neither of the main parties are innocent and so then we feel disinclined to vote for either of them. We do not want to punish either of the main parties because both are equally guilty. The first-past-the-post system makes it very easy for whichever of the leading (large) parties gains the most votes to form a government (since its popularity is magnified). With a proportional system the winning parties seldom gain enough seats to form a government on their own... they must negotiate a coalition proving that government itself is unnatural... particularly by one party. Government by coalition is not much different from anarchy and is not government in the same sense as government by one party or one leader. Government in a winner-takes-all system such a mayoral election is very different than by proportional representation because once the election is over (under pr) there is still plenty of negotiation to take place.

For true government (without a coalition) we require first-past-the post. First-past-the-post is synonymous with government in a way that pr is not.

There are no democracies

The nature of democracy is that the people are in control of the government... that is the state requires the consent of the people to rule. The state has no authority if it has not been elected by the people. To have an election is a concession made by the state to the people. If the state gives the people full democracy (in the form of proportional representation) then we can consider the state to be acting in a 'nice' way. So then a fully-democratic state is a nice state. But the state itself is by definition a form of authoritarianism and so then it is inconsistent for the state to be nice and it is inconsistent for it to be democratic. It makes no sense for the state to be democratic and in particular it makes no sense for it to use proportional representation. The state is always oppressive by definition so the most logical and consist form of state is outright authoritarianism.

Democracy is a form of anarchy and so then it is inconsistent for the state to be democratic.

The state is not important

We might think that the state has an obligation to be as democratic as possible but this is not the case since the state has no obligations. To have full democracy is consistent with the concept of the state being aligned with the people but if the people are the state it doesn't matter if they are wrong. The reality is that the state is an arbitrary concept and (as much as we might like it to be real) it is invalid. That is not to say that many of the functions of the state are all illegitimate (such as protecting the peace and preventing crime) but the state as a concept is false and not real. Since the state is not real then it is not inconsistent for the state to use a less than proportional form of democracy... or even no democracy at all. The state doesn't matter so then it doesn't matter what kind of democracy is used. We should ignore the state at all times (unless it is a dangerous threat) and not be concerned if it is democratic or not. The state is never valid since we own ourselves and so then we can have no valid complaint against first-past-the-post and even totalitarianism.

We cannot complain about the nature of the state since the state is not real.

First past the post is a problem if there is a church

If there is a two-party democracy in place then the church is able to exert it's influence over the main parties since the main parties because quasi establishment parties. If there is a two-party system then a centre-left and centre-right duopoly will emerge due to tactical voting and people seeking to maximise their vote. If this duopoly emerges then the church will seek to influence each of these parties... particularly on the right where they are traditionally more pertinent. If there is no church then the first-past-the-post system is not a problem because voters will have a straight choice between socialist policies and more liberal policies. It is only if there is a significant church in a country that the first-past-the-post system might be a problem.

The fptp system is not a problem unless the country has a large church.