First past the post is pluralitarian

It is natural in any democratic system to require a majority for a law to stand. In almost all parliaments a majority of the sitting legislators is required for the law to pass. So too with a referendum, we require a majority of the voters to support the proposal for it to pass.

A characteristic of the first-past-the-post system of voting is that a candidate can win without achieving a majority of the votes, merely a plurality. This is a problem because it means that it is no longer safe to vote for a smaller (liberal) party because to do so would be to waste the vote. In a plurality system the only meaningful votes are those cast for candidates with a good chance of success. So this system subsidises the more popular parties to the detriment of the smaller parties.

Given that the people have a right to elect their government it is possible to extrapolate and claim that the people have a right to a proportional (majoritarian) election. If democracy is a right then equally proportional representation is a right. If we assume that to hold office without having held an election is a crime (that totalitarianism is a crime) then first-past-the-post is a crime of the same nature. If not to have any democracy is a crime then equally not to have the most possible amount of democracy is a crime.

First past the post favours loyalty to the state

It is natural to treat voters as anarchists since not everyone identifies with the state. We can assume the voters are a problem for the state otherwise they would merely vote for the state to constantly grow bigger.

If the people are given only a first-past-the-post system then only the largest party will gain representation meaning that many smaller parties will be ignored. The ignored parties will tend to be more liberal since they have not shown the loyalty required to vote for one of the larger parties. People who are comfortable identifying with the state will find it less offensive to vote 'tactically' for one of the larger parties of the establishment. So then we can say that fptp favours statists and the left.

Liberals are more disloyal to the state which is why first-past-the-post favours the left.

If there is more democracy this will lead to freedom

Crime is not popular with the people either when it is perpetrated against themselves or others. Of course people don't like being victims of crime themselves but it is also true that people don't like to see others being a victim of crime. Sometimes people feel even more strongly about the suffering of other people than themselves.

Knowing that crime is unpopular we can assume that to have a democracy is safe and preferable to having an unaccountable state. If a totalitarian state is governed by a typical peaceful person then it has a chance of being benign but over time there is a chance of an ignorant tyrant rising to power which means that totalitarianism is a risk to the security of the people. With democracy this risk is reduced because the people on the whole will reject crime and violence. Crime is unpopular and so then democracy is safe and secure.

Because crime is unpopular it is generally preferable to be governed by the most democratic possible state. If there is more democracy there is less crime and more freedom. For this reason it is preferable to have a proportional system instead of a winner-takes-all (one winner) system. If there are multiple winners and not merely one then the incentive to vote tactically is reduced and the system is able to represent minority interests.

Proportional representation is preferable because it is more democratic and when the people dislike crime more democracy will lead to less crime and more freedom. Freedom is the opposite of crime and if there is more democracy this will lead to freedom since it is true that the people dislike crime.

Crime is unpopular and so then we should have proportional representation to provide the most possible freedom.

First past the post confirms the state is illegitimate

The apparent stability of the first-past-the-post system demonstrates that the state doesn't always have our interests at the front of its mind. It is clearly preferable for the people to have as much choice as possible which fptp doesn't provide. More choice is possible with a proportional system so the state is being unhelpful to the people by withholding pr.

If the government is not bad then it will seek to maximise democracy for the people so then perhaps government itself is bad. If the government is good then it would be impossible for it to use first-past-the-post. This would not be a surprise to anarchists who view the state as an illegitimate entity since it violates property rights. The presence of state-fptp only confirms in the mind of the anarchist that the state is illegitimate.

The state is illegitimate if it doesn't use proportional representation (and perhaps even if it does).

The Tories are Labour if they support fptp

If it is not possible for there to be more than one winner in an election then tactical voting will be rewarded because votes given to the smaller parties will not count. It is only if the votes cast for the less-popular candidates are recognised that people will have no incentive to vote tactically. Tactical voting arises from a winner-takes-all system.

If we assume that the default system of government is (economic) liberalism then the two-party fptp system will result in a duopoly between one party that favours a small state and a socialist party. But for a liberal voter to exclude the socialists requires them to vote for a monopolistic liberal party (since that party doesn't support pr). The liberals in a two-party system are oppressing liberal voters by apparently forcing them to vote for only their party. Fptp doesn't give liberals a choice to vote for anyone but the Tory party if they want to keep Labour out. And since many liberals will not accept this (false) offer of the Tories or a wasted vote they will let the Tories fail even if it means suffering a Labour (Democratic in the United States) government. Fptp is helpful to the Labour party and it is supported by the Tory party (or there would likely be pr) so then the Tory party are supporting the Labour party in the most significant aspect of government.

Tory support for fptp means that they are similar to the Labour party.

If the Tories are not on the same side as the Labour party the obvious course of action for them to take would be to oppose fptp and to advocate for the introduction of pr. If the Tories do not support pr they are supporting the Labour party.

The Tories are the same as Labour if they support fptp.

Fptp will result in Labour governments

The Tories are not the exact opposite of Labour that is to say that not liking Labour is not the same as being a supporter of the Tories. Other parties are possible which is why there is a problem with the first-past-the-post system.

The middle is excluded only if each statement is the opposite of the other if they are not exact opposites then we have a false dichotomy (the negation of one statement does not prove the truth of the other).

If we take a hypothetical voter who doesn't like the Labour party then for the first-past-the-post system to accommodate them requires that this voter must vote for the Tories. There is an assumption that the Tories are owed non-Labour votes. But if we do not want to exclude this kind of voter then fptp is inadequate. If some non-Labour voters might not be (and in fact are not) Tories then this Tory-supported system is being oppressive. The Tories are oppressing liberals (and being helpful to Labour) by not using a proportional system.

Using fptp to ignore the liberal vote is not a good idea for non-socialists because this leads to Labour governments. It would be wise for the Tory party (if they are not socialists) to seize the opportunity of a proportional system because this would make it possible for the Labour party to be excluded from government.

We get Labour government because the Tories refuse to adopt pr.

First past the post is worse than pr

Democracy is the means by which the people hold the state to account. If the state is objectively good then there would be no requirement for democracy because everything the state does would be good and it would be infallible. If the state is good then there is no need for democracy and there would be no argument in favour of proportional representation because the people should have no authority over the state. Arguments for democracy and proportional representation rely on the assumption that the state (is bad and) should be accountable to the people. If the state is bad then it is best to have the greatest possible amount of democracy which is proportional representation (pr). If the state is bad and anarchy is true then pr is preferable to fptp (because it is more democratic). If the state is not bad then there is no problem with fptp just as there would be no problem with a state without democracy at all. The requirement for democracy proves that the state is bad (otherwise there would be no reason for it) and so then there should be no state at all. States held accountable by pr tend to be smaller and less oppressive to the people than those which exploit fptp and so then pr is better than fptp and no state is best of all.

First-past-the-post is worse than pr which is worse than anarchy.