Democracy is a natural right

We have a natural right to property (including our own bodies) whether or not there is a state. Our rights exist whether there is a state or not. It is not from the state that we derive our rights and so then it is a crime for people to be aggressive towards our property whether or not this is against the law. Equally the state can do a crime against our property and it is not above the law... even if the law gives it impunity. If we are the state or not we must listen to and be respectful of the property claims of other people. They have rights even if the state does not recognise them. If we are a government which doesn't use the most democratic and accountable method of selection then we are not listening to the people who have a right to be listened to. We are being aggressive if we are not being democratic and democracy (to have our property claims respected) is a natural right.

Non-democracy is a crime.

To use the first-past-the-post method of voting is to disregard the opinions of the people which (in the context of government and property rights) is a violation of their rights. Not to give (innocent) people a right to refuse your property claims is a crime.

There is no state so first past the post is not arrogant

If you have a winner-takes-all election this tends almost always to result in only one winner. This means that it is like a presidential or mayoral system and political systems of this type are often characterised by 'personality politics' and the characteristics of individuals. Elections where a coalition is the likely outcome tend to be more concerned with policy because this is what drives the electorate. A winner-takes-all system has the power to expel the smaller parties from the political process thereby driving out the more engaged voters who have reasons to reject the more popular (and obvious) candidates. The more engaged voters are punished by the first-past-the-post system.

But from an anarchist point of view there is no contradiction in the state doing bad things and not being democratic. Anarchists are generally motivated by a desire for the truth and for justice and human rights. For them it is not a shock to find that the state doesn't seek to be accountable to the people. If the state is bad (for the people) then of course it will reject democracy where it can. So then there is no contradiction (for anarchists) when the government retains fptp and rejects proportional representation or direct democracy. It would be a contradiction for good and popular people to reject being accountable but for the state it is not so unexpected. If the state is good then it will seek to be accountable and democratic but the state is not good... which means that fptp is not inconsistent. It is hard to argue against fptp because to do so assumes the legitimacy of the state which is a rhetorical error. First-past-the-post is not arrogant and so then it is not funny because it contains within it no false assumptions. Fptp does not assume the state is more important than the people it merely assumes that the state doesn't want to be accountable... which it doesn't. To assume the state is malign is not a contradiction (in fact it is consistent and true). To assume that fptp is amusing (arrogant) or inconsistent assumes that the state is real and has a right to exist. Fptp is amusing only if the state is real which it isn't so then there is no joke to be made about fptp and we must endure it. In fact it is a form of statist arrogance to assume that fptp might be amusing (and arrogant).

First past the post is bad for the poor

The reality of the two-party system is that people vote Labour to protect themselves from the rich Tories. They are not voting to oppress the Tories or to oppress the rich but merely in response to the winner-takes-all system. It is not surprising that the poor are not interested in voting for the Tories in a two-party system since the Tories continue to subsidise the rich.

The Labour party are a reaction to first-past-the-post and not an advocate of it. Historically speaking the Labour party emerged long after the two-party fptp system had been put into place. The Labour party (and their voters) cannot be accused of aggression given that they did not implement the system. They are merely protecting themselves from the Tories and the rich.

But if the two-party system offers no economically liberal party for the poor to vote for (hence the rise of Labour) then clearly it has failed the poor. That the poor must (generally) vote for Labour... they are trapped into voting Labour... establishes that the two-party system doesn't work for the poor and that fptp is bad for the poor. A proportional system would be much better for the poor because it would give the poor an alternative to the Labour party... because the Labour party do not seem very interested in learning about economics. The liberation of the poor will not be accomplished by (government) economic collectivism instead it will be achieved by removing subsidies from the rich which is not being offered by the Labour party (or the Tory party). So then the poor will only be liberated if the voting system changes to a proportional system.

First past the post subsidises (political) aggression

Tactical voting is oppressive because it involves blocking the opposition party as opposed to simply voting for the preferred choice. There is an element of voting in response to the behaviour of others with tactical voting which is not present in a (liberal) proportional system. With a liberal democracy people can just vote for the party of their choice without consideration to how others will vote. This is a better system because it means (whilst voters are protected) people who seek to be aggressive are not subsidised by the system. First-past-the-post creates an artificial war between the left and the right which means that people who find this behaviour acceptable are subsidised by the system. A liberal system would not subsidise political aggression as fptp does.

Labour win at first past the post

Whilst it is true that if the Tories receive a landslide victory under fptp then to have pr would make little difference since the Tories would still be in power. But if to remove fptp would make a difference then it can only be to the benefit of the people since democracy itself is liberating and good for the people.

To claim that first-past-the-post makes no difference to the outcome of an election is to deny the existence of the Labour party who are considered to be the official opposition to the Tories. Labour often win and even if they don't win they receive very many votes many of which are cast in a 'tactical' fashion. For the Labour party to be in receipt of tactical votes means that a left-wing party is getting more votes than it would do with a proportional system which in itself is a problem for economic liberals. We can assume that the Labour party would do much less well with a proportional system and they would be replaced with a party approximating to the Liberal Democrats. So then fptp subjects the country to more economic collectivism than pr would. Tories who continue to support fptp in light of this fact (that it helps Labour) either do not have the interests of the country in mind or they deny that Labour do well (and beat the Tories) with fptp.

First-past-the-post is hurtful to the country because party loyalty is more of an anathema to liberals than to socialists. Fptp is better for Labour than the Tories so either the Tories are in denial of this fact or they don't care because they don't care about the fortunes of their own country.

Labour do better than the Tories under fptp so then fptp results in more economic collectivism than would be the case with a proportional system. The Tories either deny the fact in the preceding sentence (that Labour win at fptp) or they knowingly hate their own country.

Anarchy is better than first past the post

The only valid form of government is democracy and only a proportional system (of representation) can be said to be democratic. If the government is not democratic then it is criminal in the same way that totalitarianism is criminal. The government is criminal if it is not (proportional and) democratic. And since anarchy is preferable to being the victim of a crime then to have no government is preferable to one which does not use proportional representation. A government which uses first-past-the-post is worse than no government at all.

Civilisation requires democracy and property rights

Without property rights freedom and civilisation becomes impossible because there is no way to determine who owns what. So then given that property rights are a prerequisite for civilisation then anarchy is inconsistent with civilisation if the word anarchy means only to be absent of a state. If anarchy means only that there is no absolute authority (and there can be a state) then democracies can be consistent with anarchy.

Property rights require the consent of the group to recognise the rights of other people. Property rights are by nature a collectivist and social characteristic. Without other people there would be both no requirement for property rights and also no possibility of them. To have property rights means that your claim will be validated and recognised by a third party which is in itself a kind of socialism. Without other people there can be no property rights.

Without the state there can be no civilisation because it would be impossible to have property rights and since to have a state without democracy is impossible we deduce that without democracy property rights (and civilisation) are impossible. Civilisation requires democracy and the state. But the first-past-the-post system is not proportional and so voters are not being respected by the state which is a form of totalitarianism which then shares qualities with anarchy. Totalitarianism is similar to anarchy because there are no valid property rights and no valid state. Only a proportional voting system yields government and property rights. Without pr there is no government and as a consequence no freedom.

Freedom is impossible without proportional representation.