First past the post is a crime against the state

Without a state we can have no objective property rights, everything would be decided on the basis of willingness and ability of people to defend their property. The advantage of government and democracy is that we have an authority which is able to define the allocation of property so that when a crime occurs it can be identified. Without an objective system of property rights then all crime (and all ownership) becomes merely a matter of opinion and so then there is no meaningful property, which is bad for civilisation and development.

From the above, without a state there is no civilisation because of the absence of objective property rights which means that we can think of the state itself as a right and the property of the people, and any threat to the government is then a crime.

We can think of the first-past-the-post voting system as an assault on the state since it seeks to give a mandate to a government of sorts and yet it is not entirely democratic which means that some voters have been unfairly excluded. Because property rights extend from the (democratic) state then anything which is a threat to the state or seeks to usurp the state (as the fptp system does) is then criminal because it denies property rights. If there is a state (if the state is valid) then property rights are objective and fptp is a crime.

Government by first past the post is authoritarian

The difference between oligarchy and democracy is that with democracy the power is held equally among the people but with oligarchy power is restricted to a small number of people. Part of the problem with oligarchy is that this power which is held by the few can be purchased by the rich who seek to protect their interests so oligarchy tends to result in government by the rich, which is plutocracy. Oligarchies tend to result in plutocracy and this is why democracy is beneficial for the poor whose interests are opposed to those of the rich.

The first-past-the-post voting system is not full democracy and as such it is an oligarchy of the two main parties which will tend to result in plutocracy as the rich will purchase this power held by the two main parties. So we can say that fptp will degenerate from democracy to plutocracy.

Without government there are no objective property rights so it is not easy to envisage a civilised country without some form of a state but not all states need to be authoritarian and so then we can have a state which is consistent with anarchy in the sense of being without authority. If we use the word anarchy to mean only to be without authority then (proportional) democracy is consistent with anarchy. The state becomes authoritarian and opposed to anarchy if it does not use democracy and further if it does not use a proportional (or direct) form of democracy. Anarchists can accept democracy but not democracy which is not proportional, or direct. For this reason first-past-the-post is not anarchist, since it results in oligarchy and plutocracy, but proportional representation is anarchist, if anarchy can accept a non-authoritarian state.

Democracy is not always in opposition to anarchy, provided the voting system is helpful to voters but the first-past-the-post system is unhelpful to voters and as such it is always non-anarchist and therefore it is authoritarian.

Proportional representation gives more reason to vote

If people are not able to vote in a 'naive' way, that is to vote simply for their preferred candidate without having to be concerned about tactical voting, this is helpful to the establishment who want to act against the wishes of the people. Because a non-proportional system protects the state then the state can retain unpopular policies more easily if there is less democracy. If the voting system tends to favour (for example) just two parties then if voters cannot abandon both for a third party, the two parties remaining are able to share policies which they would have to abandon if more choice is given to the voter. First-past-the-post protects politicians from the voters and consequently it protects policies from the voters.

Because first-past-the-post makes it difficult for voters to alter the policies of the government, it reduces the incentive for people to vote and if the main policies which people want to remove are shared by both of the main parties there is no point voting, with a non-democratic system. If there is more democracy there is more reason to vote because it is easier for the people to alter the policies of the government. If there is less democracy, as with fptp, then people will have less incentive to vote. Proportional representation would give people more reason to vote than with first-past-the-post.

Two facts in support of proportional representation

When it comes to democracy there are primarily two competing systems of election, one is the first-past-the-post method and the second is so-called proportional representation. It is possible to have a legislative democracy without representation and this is direct democracy where laws are approved by the people using referendums and not votes in a legislative body. If we consider the first-past-the-post (fptp) system against proportional representation we can see that with the former (fptp) voters who vote for a party which is not expected to do well risk wasting their vote and so tactical voting emerges and is rewarded. This tends to lead to a two-party system with less real choice for voters. We might think it strange that people who accept the use of first-past-the-post (itself a kind of democracy) refuse to accept the use of proportional representation given that fptp inherently recognises the right to democracy. But many people do defend fptp over proportional representation...

To reject proportional representation in favour of first-past-the-post is to be in denial of (at least) one of two facts. Those facts are as follows:

i) That democracy is a good thing and the people should have the right to hold their government to account, via the ballot box.
ii) That proportional representation is more 'democratic' than the first-past-the-post system. And by democratic we mean that it gives voters more control over their representatives, which is the intention of democracy in the first place...

If someone accepts either of these facts then they must deny the other to support their position of opposition to proportional representation (in defence of fptp). If someone recognises that pr is more 'democratic' than first-past-the-post then (to reject pr) they must be of the view that democracy itself is not a good thing. Conversely, if someone likes and accepts the principle of democracy then if they support fptp and reject pr it can only be for the reason that they deny pr is more democratic than fptp.

Proportional representation is logically preferable to first-past-the-post unless one of the two claims above is false, that is to say that if democracy is good and pr is more democratic than fptp then it follows that pr is better than fptp.