The alternative to pr is fptp not anarchy

Pr would reduce the state even further than fptp. When we discuss the merits of fptp versus pr it is often assumed (correctly) that the state under fptp is too large and should be smaller. But without fptp (with no democracy at all) the state would be complete. People who hate the state (but like fptp) tend to hate the democratic process because it results in what they perceive to be big government... without realising that democracy is constraining the state. Anti-pr people can be vulnerable to hating democracy because they hate the state... but the problem is not democracy the problem is the state and more democracy is good because democracy is a problem for the state. The fact that democracy results in a state doesn't mean that the people have chosen to have a state... to have a state was (and is) the default position. It is not because of democracy that we have a state. Democracy is only a tool for people to have less state and so it is good to have the most effective (proportional) tool available. Democracy is a vulnerability of the state. We can have democracy without there being a state... most choices in a free market are democratic... but not shared. Democracy is not statism. The state is not democratic. If voters have a choice they will be more free. Only if a lack of democracy means anarchy would it be true to reject democracy... but given that the alternative to fptp is pr not anarchy then democracy is good. Democracy is good if the alternative to fptp is pr but otherwise it is bad. The lack of democracy provided by fptp doesn't help to reduce the size of the state because people still obey the laws. Fptp doesn't accelerate anarchy and so pr is preferable. To reject pr in favour of fptp is to be a (silly) communist... pr is more chaotic. Pr removes power from the parties and gives it directly to the people. If pr is bad then fptp is bad. Being anti-democratic is not a sufficient reason to reject pr when the alternative is fptp... as it always is.