First past the post is a form of anarchy

We know that if we do not use a proportional voting system the government will have no mandate to rule (if pr has not been used then the government has no mandate)... so this means that when we use fptp there is no mandate and no government. If there is not a mandate there is not a government and so if fptp is being used there is not a government and there is anarchy. There is anarchy if we use fptp and not pr. First-past-the-post is an anarchist voting system. If we do not use pr then we can think of this situation as being without a government.

There is no mandate if there is not pr

To have a mandate to rule a government must be elected via a form of proportional representation. If the alternative (fptp) voting system is used then the voters have not been given a choice and have not been able to refuse government they do not like. Government derives its mandate from democracy but if pr has not been used then the government has no mandate.

Proportional representation is better for the poor

The fptp system is bad for the weak and the poor. With fptp it is the popular candidates who are given all the power. Power is not allocated according to votes or popularity it is given entirely to the candidate who finishes first in an election. This means that the most popular (and powerful) candidate receives a disproportionate amount of power from the process. Fptp favours those who are already powerful and popular... it magnifies the problem of democracy which is that power is allocated according to popularity. Fptp is worse than conventional forms of democracy because it magnifies the power given to the popular candidates. The weak and the powerless do much better with a proportional system because they will be listened to regardless of the popularity of their views. With pr all views are listened to and respected but with fptp only popular views are respected.

First past the post is helpful to the church

If we assume that the centre-right fptp party the Conservatives is sympathetic to the church then we can deduce that fptp is helpful to the church. The reasoning is that since fptp 'forces' voters to vote tactically this means that the two main parties are receiving votes from people they otherwise would not if not for fptp. Fptp enables the two main parties to receive unwarranted votes. So if one of the main parties (the Conservatives) supports the church people are giving political support to the church without wanting to. The church gets more support from the state than it would do if there is a legitimate voting system in use. Because fptp forces voters to be tactical this means that the church does better than otherwise.

Communism is bad for the government

If we are in favour of anarchy then it doesn't matter which voting system we prefer because neither will be used. But if we are in favour of there being a government then it is pertinent whether we choose first-past-the-post or proportional representation. The reason for the significance of this distinction is that with fptp there tends to emerge a two-party system which denies choice to the voter. If we assume that a government without democracy will tend towards communism and we do not like communism then we would seek to ensure this does not happen. If we do not want the government to become a communist government then we would seek to ensure that it is adequately democratically accountable. If there is not enough democracy the government will be a communist government and so (if we do not like communism) we would want to make sure there is enough democracy. The problem with fptp is that it fails to give the voter enough choice which means that we end up with more communism than we would otherwise. With pr there is more choice and so there is less communism. Democracy reduces communism which is why pr is preferable to fptp. Whether we like the government or not there are clearly arguments in favour of making sure the system is sufficiently democratic. (Communism is worse than otherwise even for anarchists.) It is in the interests of the government itself to make sure it doesn't use a system of voting which denies the people a true choice. It is in the interests of the government not to be a communist government.

Not all liberals are Tories

The Conservative party is a reaction to the fptp voting system. Fptp rewards popular parties and so a collectivist party such as the Labour party will do well with fptp. As a result of this those voters who seek to counter-act the Labour party must be loyal to a single party... which in the UK turns out to be the Tory party. Without fptp liberal-minded (non-socialist) voters would be able to vote for whichever party they like. It is because of the nature of the fptp voting system that non-socialist voters must be loyal to the Tories. Without fptp the Tory party would be less strong because its strength is borne of the necessity to vote for a big party. Without fptp the Tory party would be much less strong but there would be many other liberal parties each of which would be able to gain representation. Proportional representation would remove the requirement of non-socialist voters to vote for the Tory party. Without fptp the Tories would be much less strong but liberalism would be better off. The strength of the Tories under fptp is evidence of the vulnerability of the non-socialist right when using the fptp voting system. Fptp is bad for the 'right' despite the success of the Tories with this system. Fptp forces the right to aggregate around the Tories which is a sign of weakness not strength. If the right is strong (as with pr) they will be able to vote for smaller parties in the knowledge their vote will not be ignored. The strength of the Tories when using fptp is not an indication that fptp is good for the right... it is not. Fptp is bad for the right despite the success of the Tories when using this system.

Fptp is good and pr would be even better

There is nothing more civilising than democracy it is the means by which we can be sure that people are not being oppressed. Democracy enables people to reject the state with no more than their vote which is simply their opinion. They do not need to demonstrate their power or intimidate their antagonists... their vote alone suffices. It is the means by which we remove power and force from government and society. Without democracy disputes are resolved by the use of force. With democracy it is not the strongest who gets to make the law it is everyone who can vote. Democracy gives power to the weak where they would not otherwise get power... so democracy is to be celebrated if we celebrate civilisation. Only people who would seek to oppress the weak dislike democracy. Only bad people dislike democracy everyone else should celebrate it which is why it is bad to have a non-proportional system of voting. If we do not have pr (but instead fptp) we have not exploited the full civilising power of democracy. Fptp is better than anything else apart from full proportional representation. Fptp is good but pr is better. In fact the only thing better than fptp is pr. Democracy is wonderful and pr is even better than fptp. People who like fptp would like pr even more.