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.

Proof that first past the post is oppressive

The reason to have democracy (defined by elections) in contrast to a dictatorship is that with a dictatorship there is no accountability and constraint on the powers of the state. With a democracy the people are able to reject and remove bad politicians. It is specifically this power to reject rather than accept which makes democracy liberating. It is because democracy allows the people to remove bad politicians that it is able to reduce the power of the state. Democracy is more like anarchy than dictatorship. So democracy reduces the power of the state because it gives people the ability to refuse bad government. It is a negative process. And the more choice we have the more we are able to reject the government. If we have a first-past-the-post system then this will tend towards a two-party system whereby votes for smaller third parties are wasted. The reason for this is that knowing in advance that a party you support will not do well means that it is a waste of your vote to choose it. Votes are more meaningful if they cast for the bigger parties which results in a two-party system. See Duverger's law for more information on this. If we can only (meaningfully) choose between two parties then there is less choice and less ability to refuse which crucially is the mechanism by which liberty is attained. If we can choose from more candidates we can reject more and get a smaller state. With complete anarchy we can reject all politicians... we are not governed at all. Being able to choose and reject government makes it smaller because ultimately people do not want to be ruled they want to be free. It is the natural state to be free and perverse to want a government and this is why... eventually... choice in elections will lead to less government. People do not like to be slaves and they do not like their fellow people to be slaves either which is why more choice leads to less government and why first past the post is oppressive. Fptp reduces choice and since the people (ultimately) want to be free this will result in more government which is oppressive.

First past the post is illogical

It makes no sense for the state to use anything other than proportional representation. If the state is good and protects us from the the extreme demands of the market (as a social insurance policy) then it is illogical for the state not to use pr. Since the people want the state to be good then to deny them full democracy (by imposing fptp) makes no sense. If the state is helpful to the people then the people can be trusted with full democracy... which is pr. To use fptp suggests that the people do not know what is good for them in which case government itself (by democracy) makes no sense. (And only anarchy would be logical.) If democracy is logical then it makes no sense to use fptp. Only anarchy and pr are the logical positions... to use fptp suggests that (democracy and) government is good but that the people do not know what is good for them. If the people are logical then we must use pr otherwise there would be no democracy and no government. If there is (democracy and) government then fptp is illogical. Fptp is never logical if government is good then we should use pr if we are being logical.

Only the people can remove fptp

First past the post gives the government an unfair advantage over the people. The reason for this is that with fptp it is possible to govern with (only) a minority of the vote. A plurality is required but not a majority which means that it is possible to govern with a minority of the vote provided it is a plurality. This gives an advantage to the politicians and the political class. To make things easier for the people we should have pr but this can only be achieved (once fptp has become established) if the people demand it. If the people remain complicit with the fptp system (by continuing to endorse one-or-other of the fptp parties) then it will remain. Only if the people revolt and refuse to vote for parties which prefer fptp will it be possible to replace fptp with pr (which is in the interests of the people). It is not in the interests of the state to remove fptp because their interests are not aligned with those of the people. The state will retain fptp because it serves their interests and so it is only the people who can remove fptp.