Proportional representation is fair representation

For law to be valid the legal system needs some central authority to which to defer... this doesn't mean the legal system is necessarily aggressive or authoritarian in nature merely that there needs to be some arbiter of truth. In the past this has been provided by monarchs and now it is generally the government chosen by the people in a democracy. Without a government there can be no valid law because there is nothing to determine (objective) truth.

The problem with first past the post is that even though there is a democracy which should unite the people... the fptp system divides the electorate into two separate parts for no reason. There is no advantage to the few-winner first past the post system. There is no reason to restrict the number of winners in each constituency to only a small number. We can have multiple-member constituencies. It is unusual to restrict the choice available to voters in this way (to use fptp) and so then it is normal to have a more proportional system. Proportionality in representation is fair and so we can describe proportional representation as fair representation. It is reasonable to describe 'proportional representation' as fair representation and this more accurately defines the distinction between the two systems. It is because proportionality is fair that adherents advocate it and so there is no reason not to describe pr as fair representation.

First past the post is a form of democracy

If there is a government then democracy is the most liberal possible arrangement. Politicians must respect the wishes of the people even if the people appear to be communist in the eyes of the politicians. If the people have voted for communism there is nothing that can be done about it. We cannot protect ourselves from democracy (democracy does not harm us) because if democracy is liberal there is no threat and if it is communist the people themselves are communist and to have no democracy is no improvement.

There is nothing better than democracy if there is a state so then it is not possible to impose liberalism on the people.

Proportional representation is good for the people

The purpose of democracy is to give power to the people because it is preferable that power it taken from the state and given to the people. If too much power rests in the hands of the state then full communism results which ends with starvation and poverty. Since there is either government or the electorate (and no third status of people exists) then what gives power to the state must take it from the voters. If the voters are enfranchised then the state is not. If first-past-the-post is good for the state (which it is) then it is bad for the people since there is no other entity (the middle is excluded). All democracy is good for the people and bad for the state which is why proportional representation is better for the people than fptp... due to it being inherently more democratic. Proportional representation is more democratic than fptp because it enables voters to be represented by someone who much more closely matches their views and interests. And so pr is better for the people.

First past the post is a form of oppression

There is no government which is not democratic... that is to say that if a 'government' has failed to hold valid elections then it cannot claim to be a government. Since the first-past-the-post method of electing officials is not proportional and excludes minority parties then it is not democratic and no organisation using (only) this system can claim to be official. No valid government uses fptp alone. Only governments which use a fully-proportional system are valid. There is no government which is not proportionally elected.

Fptp is anarchy in the same sense that totalitarian communism is anarchy because it is invalid and chaotic.

Democracy is less absurd than the use of first-past-the-post.

No one has a right to use first past the post

The problem with the fptp system is that voters are denied what is their natural right... which is to be respected as a voter. If it is a necessity to have a government then it must naturally be democratic and further it must not be susceptible to Duverger's law ("plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system"). If the voting system is susceptible to Duverger's law (as all single-winner elections are) then the natural democratic rights of the people have been denied. We have a right to be free from Duverger-susceptibility and so we have a right for the government not to use first past the post.

It is not true to say that the government and politicians necessarily know what is best for the country... this is why we have elections. It is the people in a democracy who know what is best and it is they who must take precedence but with fptp the voter doesn't take precedence as they should.

First past the post is anarchy which is good

The advantage of a first past the post system is that it makes the problem of government obvious to everyone. If government is a valid concept then it would not lead to tactical voting because all forms of government would be acceptable and non-threatening. The prevalence of tactical voting (under fptp) shows that people not only dislike the main parties but also that they dislike the government itself. If government is to be valid it must be democratic and so then it must use proportional representation and if pr is not in use then the government is invalid. So then pr legitimises government more than first past the post... which is good only if we want to legitimise the government. If we do not want to legitimise the government then there is no reason to have pr and there are reasons to have fptp.. because it frustrates voters. There can be no valid government without pr so fptp provides no valid government and is to be welcomed.

First past the post is preferable because it invalidates government itself. There is anarchy if fptp is in use which is why fptp is a good system.

Democracy helps to reduce government crime

If crimes are to be prevented then there must be a government to arrest criminals. Generally criminals are bad people who do not stop unless they are confronted by force and when we use force to stop a criminal we are being a state. Because of the categorical imperative we must 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction'. That being the case no one can be a criminal and there must be a state to remove criminals from society. We can assume that without punishment (exclusion) criminals will continue to be criminals so we need a state to prevent crime. And to prevent crimes of the state we need a democracy so that we can protect ourselves from state theft and slavery. We need the state to protect us from individual criminals and we need democracy to protect us from crimes enacted by the state itself. If there is less democracy (fptp) then the state will be able to do more crimes than otherwise. If there is a less democratic system such as fptp then government crime (communism) will be easier to enact. The government will find it easier to enact its criminal communist programs if there is not a sufficiently democratic system in place.

Proportional representation helps to reduce communism because it helps to reduce government crime.