The bad news is that first past the post is oppressive

The nature of the first-past-the-post voting system is that someone can become a Member of Parliament without achieving a majority of the votes cast, merely a plurality. This means that votes cast for losing candidates are eliminated from the electoral process to a greater degree than with a proportional system. If we assume that the eliminated candidates were in disagreement with the winning candidate then the result is that there will be more consensus and less antagonism as a result, in parliament. Since for people to be free requires that they are able to safely disagree, this results in less freedom for the people. If the minority candidates which 'lost' the fptp election are nevertheless promoted to parliament in a proportional manner this means that (because a greater extent of the people are represented) there is more freedom.

The first-past-the-post system blocks voters from parliament which results in less freedom.

First past the post is not libertarian

If we consider the case of either direct democracy or proportional representation then we can see that the interests of the public are served in both cases. An example of direct democracy is a referendum where the people (however well-informed or otherwise) vote directly on the legislation without a representative voting on their behalf. We can consider proportional representation (despite its name) to be a kind of democracy without representation because voters are truly represented by someone who shares their views; in a representative system like first-past-the-post the views of the representative often differ from the voters.

Because, by their nature, officials elected via fptp are close to the government (unlike with proportional systems) they will tend to vote in favour of the state in contrast to the people. The people (or proportionally-elected representatives) can be relied upon to vote for their own interests ahead of those of the state, which is what we would expect in a democracy. Since to advance the interests of the people ahead of the state is libertarian by definition then we can say that true democracy is libertarian and that fptp is not libertarian.

Libertarian policies will be those which are more favourable to the people of a country than the state so then (because democracy serves the people) we can say that true democracy is libertarian, in contrast to fptp. Because first-past-the-post is representative and not direct it is less libertarian than other systems.

First past the post is not true democracy

In a genuinely democratic system participants are able to vote in a 'naive' sense, they are able to vote without thinking about how other people are likely to vote. If tactical voting is eliminated from the electoral process (as with proportional representation) then we have true democracy.

First past the post is not liberal

Whilst winners of a first-past-the-post election will claim to be true representatives of their electorate, this is not necessarily the case because many voters have been ignored. If only one candidate in a seat is able to advance to the legislature this means that the outcome is unlikely to be proportional and tactical voting may be rewarded. The remedy to this situation is to have either direct democracy or to have many more winners per seat. If there are more winners per seat then voters who support the smaller parties are less likely to be excluded. It is one of the principles of a liberal democracy that all voters are included and given representation, which is why the fptp system fails in being liberal.

A democratic system can be said to be liberal if it is either direct (as in a referendum) or otherwise proportional and if there are many winners in each seat then the system is adequately proportional. If voters for the smaller (minority) parties are excluded by the voting system chosen this is not a liberal system and voters have a right to liberalism.

The voting public, as subjects of the state, have the right to liberal elections and if the first-past-the-post system is in use this right has been oppressed which is a crime. By definition, in a liberal society, all freedoms which are not a crime are a right and so to have 'fair' elections is a right. The government do not have a right to use the first-past-the-post system because it oppresses the voters for the smaller parties and so, in a liberal society, for the government to use fptp is a crime.

Liberalism is true and so then, because fptp excludes minority voters (which is not a right), the first-past-the-post system is criminal. All voters in a liberal society must be respected and represented which means only direct democracy or proportional representation are permissible.

First past the post is equivalent to government

Anarchists want to liberate themselves from the state and the state (generally) seeks to attach itself to those who seek to leave. Democracy is the primary means by which people who do not like the state are able to liberate themselves from it but if the voting system is not proportional this weakens this ability. If the voting system is not proportional anarchists will find it more difficult to remove themselves from the state when they vote. Voting is bad for the government but fptp is less democratic (less proportional) which means it protects the state from the liberation of the people.

With either direct democracy or pr (proportional representation) the voters are able to some extent to escape the state which means that these systems are better for anarchists. The fptp system protects the state and so it is preferable for the state to have.

First past the post is associated with the state.

Democracy is peaceful and anti-authoritarian

The purpose of democracy is to enable the people to protect themselves from crime, however that is defined. Since crime is always authoritarian (the criminal fails to respect the rights of the victim), democracy being anti-authoritarian prevents crime. Democracy is not criminal and as such it promotes peace and any opposition to democracy such as the first-past-the-post system is harmful to peace and is criminal.

Democracy is anti-authoritarian anarchy and so it acts against crime. Without authority (with anarchy) there is no crime and so democracy prevents crime and protects freedom.

There are no governments

From the point of view of the government and politicians democracy is a problem because it means that the government can be replaced. But this is the purpose of democracy so for democracy to be unhelpful to politicians is not a contradiction. Democracy is anarchy from the point of view of the government (which is the only relevant point of view).

The first-past-the-post voting system is less democratic than proportional alternatives which means it is less anarchistic. And from the point of view of the voter anarchy is good because it gives them more power. The interests of the voter are aligned with anarchy and anti-authoritarianism. If the opposite of authority is anarchy then voters are anti-authoritarian. And in this sense first-past-the-post is authoritarian.

The purpose of this post is merely to arrange the words correctly and to make sure they are adequately-defined, in a sense to define reality, at least according to how the words are being used. We are defining the truth, I have not found a contradiction in the fptp position, merely that it denies reality and so I am just writing this post to further define reality, in particular with regard to the use of the words anarchy, government and so on.

The problem with a lack of democracy (a lack of anarchy) is that eventually an authority will emerge which is to the detriment of the people. We can think of an authority as being completely synonymous with government, without government there are no authorities.