First past the post is dangerous

The danger of not having democracy is that the state (being unchecked) is able to expand indefinitely, which will lead to universal poverty. For the state not to be checked by democracy is very dangerous for the people because it will expand forever. Without a democratic check on democracy the state will consume everything which is why democracy is important.

When the first-past-the-post system is used this is partly democratic but not full democracy and once the centre-right party is no longer widely-supported it tends to a one-party state of the left. Historically, people have voted for the centre-right party in a two-party system because that party is more closely aligned with the church, but as this becomes less important for people, then fptp becomes like a one-party state. One-party totalitarianism is a threat to he survival of the people because when the state is unchecked it consumes everything and there is no material wealth. When the centre-right party is no longer widely supported fptp becomes more like a one-party totalitarian state which is dangerous.

Fptp favours the state because it favours the big two

The essential problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it tends to encourage a two-party system due to tactical voting. Voters know that only voting for parties which will do well is worthwhile and so they will not consider the minority parties and this feeds on itself to the point where there are very few parties remaining, usually two. So a multi-party system becomes a two-party system under first-past-the-post.

Defenders of this system (usually from one of the favoured parties) will claim that to favour bigger parties is not to favour the state and so fptp is not anti-voter it is merely pro the big two parties. It is generally assumed that laws should not be 'statist' (they should not indiscriminately favour the state) but adherents of fptp will say that to favour the big two parties is not to favour the state itself, merely those two parties. But this is wrong because the fptp system converts those two parties into something more important than they would otherwise be. The first-past-the-post system enshrines those two parties into something approximating to the state so the anarchist defence of fptp that the big two are not the state falls down and we can see that fptp favours the state, for the reason that it favours the big two.

First-past-the-post converts typical (but large) parties into something more than that and in fact makes them comparable to the state itself, which means that anti-fptp arguments are anti-state arguments.

Adherents of fptp typically claim that they are not being statist in their preference but this is wrong because they fail to see (are in denial of the truth) that fptp converts normal (anarchist) parties into elements of the state, so to protect the 'big two' is to protect the state.

Proportional representation is liberal

Democracy is good because it is liberal and the opposite of liberalism is criminality. We know that without an element of authoritarianism there is no crime so liberalism is the opposite of crime, which is always authoritarian. If something is not liberal then it is a crime.

So, as far as politics is concerned, we strive for liberalism. It is clear that democracy is always more liberal than its absence because it gives the people over whom the government seeks to rule, the power to replace their leaders with other ones. Democracy, being liberal, is not criminal and anything which stands in the way of democracy is a crime. We know (from earlier) that if democracy is good then pr is good but we can go further by saying that if democracy is liberal then pr is liberal too. And if something is liberal it is to be valued for not being criminal.

Proportional representation is more liberal than first-past-the-post because it is more democratic and democracy is liberal. To be liberal (in a political sense) is objectively good because the opposite involves authoritarianism and as a consequence possible criminality.

First past the post is plutocratic

We can see that democracy is good for the poor because it enables property rights to be determined not only by wealth but also popular opinion. The very rich are threatened by democracy because it means that in theory their wealth can be appropriated by the state, so true democracy is a threat to the rich. If there is a first-past-the-post system then the people do not have true democracy and the very rich are able to retain their wealth.

First-past-the-post is against democracy because it doesn't let the people take power from the establishment and this serves the rich. True democracy would enable the people to redress perceived economic injustices but the presence of the fptp system prevents this and makes sure that the rich retain their wealth.

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.