The Tories are not anarchists so pr is preferable

There is a line of thinking whereby fptp is preferable because full democracy will lead to big government and socialism. The argument is that because anarchy is statelessness (and is to be desired) and in contrast democracy is associated with government then it is better to have as little government as possible. But this doesn't work as a defence of fptp. The reason for this is that fptp remains a form of democracy. A government is formed under fptp even if the intention is to encourage anarchy. People will vote in their best interests which doesn't always mean they will comply and pick the mainstream anti-state party. For fptp to 'work' as an anti-state mechanism it requires that voters are sympathetic to this restriction of their liberties and have empathy for the view that full democracy is bad and that anarchy is good. But even if people think that anarchy is good it is unlikely that they will be willing to endorse either one of the mainstream parties willingly. The Tories are not the anarchist party... they do have policies which they implement so the argument that the purpose of fptp is to constrain socialism (and support anarchism) is spurious. Only anarchists would be able to (consistently) argue that to restrict democracy for the benefit of their own party is good and constrains socialism. But since the Tories are not anarchists this argument doesn't hold. Only if the Tories are anarchists does it (might it) make sense to have fptp... in all other cases fptp hinders democracy and freedom. Unless the Tories are anarchists pr is preferable.