Democracy is not an obligation of the state

The government can steal everything from you. If it cannot then it is not the government because to be a government means that there is nothing more powerful to threaten you. So if there is a government then your rights are only that which the government decides to leave for you. Everything you own including your body is owned by you only because the government has not claimed it.

Not excluded from these rights which the government can take is the right to democracy itself. If there is an absolute state then this state can simply remove democracy on a whim and the state will remain (if not it was not a true state initially). The state doesn't have to give us democracy, we have no right to democracy. And because of this it is very difficult to argue for more democracy than exists presently because you have no power to make such a claim. All you can do is express your disappointment that there is insufficient accountability. We have no right to democracy and so then we have no right to replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation.

If there is a state then our rights are granted only by the state and we have no other rights. If there is no state then our rights are determined by our own opinion and that of our compatriots. We have no non state-granted rights if there is a state which means that if the state fails to grant (full) democracy it is not a right under the state. Democracy is not a natural right if the state refuses to give it since in the presence of the state natural rights are constrained to those granted by the state.

The state determines natural rights (otherwise there would be no state).

The desire for democracy is different from other claims because with democracy we are not seeking to protect ourselves necessarily but to elect a representative. We can think of this as the manifestation of our natural desires to protect ourselves and our property. Voting is largely an anti-crime activity and so then to have our vote removed is like removing one of our natural protections. If we do not have democracy then our ability to repel criminals is reduced because the state takes on this role but without our guidance. It is only the state which stops criminals but if we don't have democracy the state will be much worse at this endeavour (and let criminals in). The state is the police but if we don't have democracy the police will be much less good at their job.

It is nice to be given democracy by the state (the police) but if we have not been given democracy there is little we can do to complain about it other than to demand anarchy. It is a lack of deference on the part of the state which fails to respect that the state must serve before it leads that leads to a lack of democracy. For this reason there is nothing intrinsically 'arrogant' about first-past-the-post because we democrats are defaulting on the state (in a conservative fashion) rather than laughing at it. We democrats would argue that if we must have a state then at least give us full democracy otherwise we would prefer (the absence of a state and to have) anarchy. We want anarchy unless you give us democracy. First-past-the-post is worse than complete anarchy.

But this is only a statement of comparative tastes and ultimately if we respect the state then there is no argument for democracy.