Non-democracy can be considered to be a kind of tax

Despite the fact that anarchists reject the concept of the state there is no reason for them to be indifferent between different kinds of government. Most anarchists would accept that democracy is (objectively) preferable to dictatorship and that direct democracy is preferable to other kinds of democracy. Even anarchists would accept that if the state is accountable to the people then there is less chance of the emergence of tyranny.

If anarchists have a preference for democracy then they will have a preference for proportional representation over first-past-the-post. We (anarchists) would be pleased and grateful to live in a country with at least fptp but would like for the state to give up even more of its powers to the people by accepting pr. With fptp the state has given up some of its power and control to the people and with pr even more is given up. And since when the state gives up power this is liberal and pro-anarchy then anarchists like (direct) democracy. Democracy is not inconsistent with anarchism, although it might be considered inconsistent with absolute anarchy. (Anarchists can argue for full democracy where only partial democracy presently exists, and not be considered inconsistent.)

Since democracy is liberal (the state has given up powers to the people), more democracy is more liberal than less democracy. Liberalism is associated with freedom and a lack of coercion. Taxation is illiberal which means that non-democracy can be considered to be a kind of taxation given that in general the people will vote to be free (from the state). The state has the power to oppress freedom which means that in general democracy acts to enhance freedom.

Democracy is liberating compared to its absence

If we assume that, at least as far as politics is concerned, people hold their own interests above those of others then we have an argument for democracy. If we imagine a state which is not answerable to democracy then we can see that this will quickly descend into totalitarianism (in the name of communism). The reason for this is that when important decisions are made the state will choose to protect itself above the ordinary person. Equally when elections are held in a democratic country we can assume the people will place themselves (and their interests) above the state. And it is for this reason that democracy is liberating compared to its absence.

Whilst people might claim to be patriotic and to always put their government above themselves, the presence of democracy enables the people to protect themselves from an over-bearing state. Democracy is liberating and provides freedom because it means that the people are able to constrain the state.

Without democracy there is no valid law

If it is true that the establishment is protected by the first-past-the-post system then the establishment are an impediment to justice. To have a fair and valid system of government and law requires that the state be accountable to the people which it serves. If this is not the case then the state has no mandate because without democracy no state is valid. The state must be democratic and use proportional representation (or direct democracy) otherwise there is no valid justice system because this too relies on democracy. Without democracy there is no valid system of law and justice.

First past the post protects the establishment

We assume that government itself is a good thing otherwise there would be no reason to support it and to pay taxes to it. So then given that government by definition is a good thing there is no reason to oppress democracy by protecting the first-past-the-post system.

If government and democracy is not good then there might be a reason to protect the establishment by oppressing democracy but since there is no problem with democracy (and government) there is no problem with proportional representation. Proportional representation is fine because both government and democracy are objectively good. First-past-the-post is anti-state which is to deny the virtues of government.

First-past-the-post is anarchist only if the establishment which are retained in the absence of proportional representation are anarchist. If the establishment are not anarchist then fptp is not anarchist.

Direct representation is better than first past the post

As far as democracy is concerned it is possible for not all legislation to be voted on by the public, instead we can have representatives who decide on most law on our behalf. Provided the representatives themselves are a fair reflection of the voting public then the outcome will not differ too greatly from direct democracy. And in this sense if the representatives deliver a form of government equivalent to that which would be delivered with direct democracy we can call it direct representation.

By its nature direct representation will need to be proportional otherwise the government would not be a fair reflection of the voting public.

We use the term direct to convey the sense that the people are in charge as they should be in a democracy. This means that they (the people) have direct access to the legislative process and can veto any bad laws. It also means that if the legislators fail to serve the people then the people have the power to remove them. If the democracy is not direct (as in the case of first-past-the-post) then it becomes much more difficult to remove bad legislators because of the two-party system which tends to develop.

Ultimately people prefer themselves to the state

The more democracy there is the easier it is for the people to hold the state to account. We can think of democracy as a kind of anarchy in that the people get to express their preferences in the ballot box without finding out how things would end up without a government. It is a way for people to protect themselves without using force, it is a kind of protection above the purest form of anarchy in which we would only find out what people think (and are able to protect) when force is used. In summary, democracy is very similar to anarchy but we might not think so because very few countries are fully-democratic.

The purest form of democracy is direct democracy with proportional representation coming a very close second because it is almost the same as direct democracy. (In fact we might even argue that pr is better than direct democracy because representatives are able to dedicate more time to the legislative process than typical people.)

Any form of government which is not fully-democratic will be larger and more oppressive than a democratic government because ultimately people prefer themselves to the state. For the government to oppress democracy is to protect themselves which is an act against anarchy. For the state to claim that to protect the first-past-the-post system from pr is an act of anti-socialism and pro-anarchy is not true. It is denialism to think that to oppress democracy is harmful to the state and so liberating. If we assume Tories think of themselves as being anti-socialism and are in favour of the fptp method then we have a contradiction because democracy is (in the long run) bad for socialism. To take this position is to be in denial of the truth that democracy and anarchy are associated and not contradictory.