Proportional representation is good for the voters

It is unlikely that the government withholds socialism from a socialist people because even if the people benefit from socialism the government will benefit more. Socialism is better for no one than the government. So then we can assume that democracy (giving the people a voice) tends to work against socialism because the interests of the voters will be less aligned with socialism than those of the state. The state tends to be more socialist than the people which is why democracy is liberating and communists generally oppose democracy.

Liberal voters have an interest in increasing democracy where it is suppressed because of course voters want more democracy by definition. The opportunity to refuse something even if it is the government is always welcome and so voters like democracy. But (from above) democracy tends to be more liberating than non-democracy so voters are more liberal than the government. Given this fact it is more liberal to have as much democracy as possible which means the rejection of the first-past-the-post system in favour of pr.

Proportional representation is more liberal and since voters are liberal (compared to the government) then pr is good for the voters.

Labour are on the right and the Tories are on the left

In the general population many more people are right-handed than left-handed which may explain why the political right are associated with strength and the left with weakness. But in a political context it is the parties of the left who have more strength given their association with populism and democracy. Democratic collectivism will always be more strong than concepts associated with the right such as social conservatism and religion.

Given the above it is inconsistent for the left (the Labour party in the UK) to be associated with the 'left' and they should be referred to as the right. The Labour party are correctly described as being on the right and the Tories on the left.

Proportional representation is left wing

Property rights must be democratic to be legitimate. For the state to exist and to impose property rights and claims on the people without their consent is illegitimate and authoritarian. The people have a right to hold the government to account and define property rights. If the property rights are not acceptable to a majority of the people then they have no legitimacy.

If the state fails to accept the greatest possible amount of democracy (proportional representation) then it is being authoritarian and illegitimate even if it is not actively aggressive. The mere act of defending unpopular property claims is an act of arrogance and aggression against the people. The state has no property if it is not acceptable to the people.

The state has no right to impose property claims without the consent of the people.

In a two-party system anarchy is left wing

If we are a victim of crime then we have a choice whether or not to respond to it. If we do not respond then it is likely that the crime will be repeated. If we respond then we are defining our property rights with force and we can describe this as defensive force. When a criminal is arrested and placed in prison then the society is reacting to the aggressive crime.

This applies also in an election where we might seek to resist a party which we find to be very offensive. If we consider them (the party) criminal then to vote to oppose them might be considered to be an act of justice and law-and-order.

An anarchist views all government and all political parties as criminals since they are opposed to the concept of government. A democrat will take a similar view with regard to non-democratic political parties such as those who promote first-past-the-post. So for democrats to vote to reject fptp is an act of justice and to fail to do this is to be remiss in our peaceful obligations.

Anarchists have a preference for democracy since democracy is bad for the state so then an anarchist will seek to block first-past-the-post where possible. Because the Tory party is more closely associated with fptp than Labour then in a two-party system it is the Labour voters who are being more democratic and more anarchist. In a two-party system it is the Labour voters who are the anarchists not the Tories because Tories are more closely associated with the anti-democratic fptp voting system. The Labour party are a more recent phenomenon.

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.