Tories do not support first past the post

It is not easy for voters to make a choice between the Labour party and a purportedly right-wing party which is opposed to democracy. The first-past-the-post system is anti-democratic which means that it restricts choice for voters. Since freedom of choice is associated with capitalism and right-wing policies it is transparently hypocritical for a party on the right to reject proportional representation. For the Tories to reject pr is a kind of electoral denialism which makes voting for them difficult.

If the Tories chose to support a proportional system of voting it is likely they would be able to attract voters who find it hard (and contradictory) to vote for a party which rejects democracy. But if they do not support pr then Labour will win because people who are right-wing will find it difficult to accept the logic of choice in the financial market but not at the ballot box. In the long term the Tories as the party of the right will not win fptp elections and their only possibility to gain office is if they reject fptp for pr.

If the Tories support pr then even in opposition they will be able to influence policy such that even if Labour retain their anti-democracy position the voting system will change from fptp. Given that Tories lose under fptp it is only logical for true Tories to reject fptp for pr.

The nanny state is not the same as democracy

The state has no right to exist without democracy. To have the consent of the people via democracy is a requirement for a valid state. A reason for this is that the state has the ability to (legally) constrict personal choice and control our actions. Without democratic accountability these powers can descend into a tyrannical situation... these powers must be held in check by democracy.

To have unchecked state powers is a kind of nanny-statism whereby the state is able to restrict our lives for our own benefit. If we are being controlled for our own benefit because other people claim to know better this is dangerous because the typical arguments in favour of freedom have been nullified due to the claim that the state knows best. If someone (with power over us) claims to know what is in our interests and that we as individuals do not know what is best for us then there is no argument for individual autonomy. To prevent a nanny state all state power must be democratically accountable so that the state is held to account by the people.

The Labour party supports direct democracy

Generally speaking those who seek political power do so in the hope that what they do will be helpful and popular. It is rare for politicians (however bad) to seek political office with the deliberate intention of harming the people and being unpopular so then it is strange that not all politicians advocate more democracy. If we (as a politician) consent to the concept of being democratically accountable then there is no reason not to seek to maximise democracy. All reasonable politicians accept and advocate democracy and so then all are in favour of proportional representation and none of them tolerate first-past-the-post. It might be argued that I am wrong and that there is good evidence to show that some politicians reject pr and in fact support first-past-the-post but those people are not true politicians, they are something else.

All genuine politicians (including the Labour party and the Conservative party) support direct democracy and proportional representation. It is incorrect to think that Labour and the Conservatives do not support proportional representation in spite of what may appear to be evidence to the contrary.

Elections prove the state is different from the people

There is a big difference between the voters and the state otherwise there would be no need for elections. But since there is a difference between the people and the state (the state is a false concept) we need elections to make sure the state has a mandate from the people to act as it is acting. We cannot be sure that the people entirely approve of all that the state is doing which is why we need elections. And if we need elections then it makes sense that we would prefer them to be as democratic and proportional as possible (which doesn't exclude direct democracy).

The state might be unpopular because it is different from the people which means that (full) democracy is logical. The state is an abstract and arbitrary construct (it is different from the people) so then for it to be even slightly valid requires that it must be accountable to elections. If it must hold at least fptp elections then it must further hold pr elections... if the state is invalid without holding elections (and holds fptp elections for this reason) the logic leading up to the fptp elections further suggests that pr elections must be held. If it is logical to hold fptp elections then it is further logical for the state to hold proportional elections (because the state is invalid).

The Tories should be called the Progressives

If we have democracy then to be conservative is to be in favour of democracy and anarchists would then be progressives (in the face of democracy which is synonymous with the state). First-past-the-post is anti-democratic (anti-state) which suggests that the Conservatives (who support fptp) do not like democracy which would make them anarchists. Since anarchy is progressive in the light of democracy and the state then the Conservative party are progressives since they oppose proportional representation.

Since the position of a political party on the type of voting system they prefer is of optimal importance then it makes no sense for the Conservatives (who oppose pr) not to describe themselves as progressives since anarchy (and anti-democracy) is progressive.

Anarchists are progressives which means that it makes little sense for the Conservatives not to change their name to the Progressives since they are anarchists of a kind. The Conservatives are anarchists because they oppose pr which means they should correctly be named the Progressive party and not the Conservatives.

Voters should not comply with totalitarianism

If we accept to some degree that to not have full democracy is helpful to the establishment then (despite democracy being good for the state) the establishment is not entirely of the state. The establishment by definition are not anarchists and so then we can deduce that if the establishment are statists who dislike democracy they are in some sense totalitarians since anti-democratic statism is totalitarianism.

When people vote for either of the first-past-the-post parties (Labour and the Conservatives) they are supporting the anti-democratic establishment which means they are complying with anti-democratic totalitarianism (all anti-democratic governments are totalitarian). So the voters are failing to take the opportunity of blocking the totalitarian anti-democratic establishment.

Voters should not comply with any form of totalitarianism even one which might appear to be as benign as the fptp voting system. All forms of totalitarianism should be opposed and for this reason voters should not vote for any party which endorses fptp.

The people should not accept first past the post

Voters should not accept the first-past-the-post voting system because democracy is logical and good and fptp is not the most democratic system possible. It is rational for the voting public to refuse to use fptp when electing their representatives and accept only a truly democratic system such as direct democracy or pr. If the people accept fptp they are (perhaps) enabling an unpopular government to remain in power which is objectively bad.