First past the post tends to result in big government

In any political system the people and parties in power are able to do what they want subject to the constraint of being democratic. This means that (because they are the government) they are able to dictate the law. The law is defined by the government, which means that they are able to appropriate wealth and property if they wish. Elections enable the people to force the government to release money and power back to the people, so if the voting system is inefficient then this process will happen to a lesser degree and the people will be poorer and the government will be richer.

Part of the problem with the first-past-the-post voting system is that it tends to favour just two political parties which means that, in the end, they just compete against each other and not to serve the people. If more parties can win then each party will feel they are being 'attacked' from different directions, but with a two-party system they must worry only about what the opposition is offering to the people. So if there is less competition for the political parties in an election this is bad for democracy and will result in more poverty for the people as the state appropriates power (relatively) unchecked. To mitigate against this process it is possible to ensure that smaller, minority parties have a better chance and this means altering the system to get something close to proportional representation.

First-past-the-post tends to result in big government whereas proportional representation puts more pressure on the political parties which means a smaller state and more prosperity for the voting public.

Without democracy there can be no property

To have property requires democracy because without the right to vote you have no ability to protect yourself from the government. And since property is a natural right then democracy too is a natural right. Democracy is a natural right because property is a natural right and without democracy there can be no property.

For the government not to be arbitrary requires that it seeks a mandate from the people, via an election and this is democracy. If the state doesn't enable the people to hold it to account then it is not a valid government and it is a tyranny. There is no valid government which doesn't use democracy. But we might ask if all types of democracy and election are the same... if voters cannot cast their votes in a 'naive' fashion then they might be encouraged to vote tactically which is a problem for the voters and is not full democracy. Only full democracy validates the state and we cannot describe first-past-the-post as full democracy. To have full democracy requires proportional representation otherwise the voter is not able to have their intentions reflected in parliament.

As an aside we note that since referendums are by nature proportional (each vote is equal) then direct democracy (in the form of government by referendums) falls into the category of proportionally-elected government.

Government is not valid if it is not democracy and if the government is not valid we can say that it is illegal, since the government must be lawful as it is the solitary body which defines the law. If the government is invalid it is illegal and so then any government which doesn't use pr is illegal and we can say that (government by) fptp is illegal. If the state is not held accountable proportionally then it is illegal and fptp doesn't provide legal constraint on the government. The government is insufficiently constrained if a form of direct democracy or proportional representation is not used.

Democracy is better than first past the post

Part of the reason governments use democracy is that the people will not tolerate them if they do not use democracy so democracy is not popular with the state, necessarily. The people tolerate the presence of the state only if it is at least partially democratic and the reason that democracy is desired by the people is that it is anti-authoritarian. The people want democracy because it is, to a degree, like anarchy in that the government is not the arbitrary source of authority, the people can sometimes reject the government. So the government is forced to be in some sense anarchist because the people will not otherwise tolerate it.

Democracy is like anarchy but the first-past-the-post system is not fully-democratic and as a result it is only partially anarchist, and partially authoritarian. The people have been tricked we might say by accepting fptp given that the people demand anti-authoritarian democracy. The people have been convinced by the government that fptp is like anarchy when it is not. The government too, to a degree, think that fptp is anarchist and so then they deduce that the extent of freedom being given by the government is what the people want. The government, since they think fptp is anarchy, deduce that the people do not want more freedom than is being offered by fptp when in fact this is not the case and fptp is oppressive. The people want as much freedom as democracy allows but fptp is only slightly democratic, not fully-democratic and so then the people are oppressed by the absence of full democracy.

Democracy is consistent with Toryism

Given that democracy enables the people to protect themselves from the state it is inconsistent for a party of the right to reject democracy. Democracy is consistent with freedom and liberty, both concepts associated with the right, or perhaps if not with the right then not with the left.

It makes no sense for conservatives and Tories to reject proportional representation (as they often do) when we consider the reality of democracy as a liberating force, unless the Tories reject freedom. If the right is in favour of freedom then we would expect them to support (the extension of) democracy wherever possible, unless democracy is harmful to freedom. If democracy is not harmful to freedom then real Tories and real conservatives support democracy.

Anarchy is not better than democracy

The nature of reality is that statelessness is impossible because when there is no central government gangs, or brigands will emerge. There can never be true anarchy (in the sense of statelessness) although there can be anti-authoritarianism if democracy allows this.

The least bad form of government is democracy because the alternative is totalitarianism which means the government faces no constraints on its power and unconstrained government power will lead to despotism. So democracy is the least bad form of government and anarchy will lead to brigandism so then if this is a kind of government itself (and anarchy is impossible) then democracy is the least bad state of affairs.

There will always be a state or central authority of some kind, whether legal or illegal and we might as well resign ourselves to the fact that democracy is the least bad state of affairs and that anarchy is impossible.

Democracy is certainly the least bad form of government but it is also the least bad state of affairs given that there can never be genuine anarchy... there will always be some emergent group of outlaws who will take control and this will become a government. Because government is inevitable it is always better to have democracy than any other kind of government and nothing is better than democracy.

Proportional (popular) representation is not left wing

Part of the problem with a first-past-the-post voting system is that (if we assume the emergence of a two-party system) voters on the right must be loyal to the established party to keep out the party of the left. In the UK, people must vote for the Tory party in order to block the party of the left, the Labour party. This might not seem too much of a problem if voters do not mind voting for the Tory party but this might not be appealing to many people, to begin with there is a kind of monopoly being established if there is only one party centre-right voters can choose.

The conventional thinking is often that the same applies on the left, non-Tory voters are compelled to vote for the Labour party and because this effect is symmetrical there is nothing to be concerned about and the problem cancels out. But this is not the correct approach given that people on the left do not mind so much to be forced into voting for a monopolistic party... that is to say that their ideology aligns well with this imposition. It is not a contradiction for the left to be expected to remain loyal to (and vote for) only one party. It is voters on the right who are more rebellious and will be less inclined to vote for the party which they are expected to vote for.

Democracy is intended to weaken the state otherwise it serves no purpose so then the most effective kind of democracy is that which is bad for the state and hence bad for the left. If voters are given more choice this is bad for the left even if a preponderance of the voting public are on the left. The reason is that voting and elections will always constrain the state even if a large state is popular... if the voting public are left-wing then the absence of elections would lead to even more government and totalitarianism. Just because voters seem to be left-wing doesn't mean that democracy is left-wing because the state might be even more totalitarian in the absence of democracy.

Democracy is efficient if it protects the people from the government which means to protect the people from the left. All state oppression is left-wing so then the best (and most democratic) voting system is that which gives the voter the greatest possible ability to reject the state. We know that there are many people who do not like either of the main two parties and since these 'rebellious' votes are lost then the system is protecting the state. If rebellious votes are lost then this is to the advantage of the state and this means that the system is left-wing.