The Tories got 43.6% of the votes. So a minority of the votes cast gave them a substantial majority of the seats in parliament. Only the fundamentally undemocratic electoral system gave them the ability to form a government without negotiating a coalition.
I understand that some people don't agree with First Past the Post systems, but it's a little overblown to say it's fundamentally undemocratic. And I don't see how a coalition government formed through horse trading and favor-swapping in backroom negotiations is more democratic.
(Somewhat related: Anyone who complains about the 'undemocratically elected' Tories is compelled by consistency to complain about the 'undemocratically elected' Labour government of Tony Blair and the likely forthcoming 'undemocratic' government of Kier Starmer. If they are quiet about that, then they haven't a leg to stand on. See also complaining about the results of the Brexit Referendum, which won a clear, although narrow, majority of the people who bothered to vote, and was therefore legitimate by the lights of people who prefer majority decisions.)
I absolutely consider every government elected with a minority of the votes under FPTP to have been illegitimate and undemocratic.
A government formed through negotiation is more democratic if you accept that a representative government can ever be democratic and that the parties actually represents the interests of their voters in as much as if neither party achieves a majority, then a compromise that provides for some of what is wanted by all is more democratic. If anything, I'd argue the broader coalition the more democratic - democracies are best measured by how well they ensure also the interests of the minorities are protected.
A contract implies a meeting of minds. I do not accept any system which has systematically denied me representation my entire adult life as legitimate in any way.
A system imposed on people which denies them representation has no claim to be considered democratic.
All representative systems are somewhat undemocratic but the point of them is to pick someone who's we can agree is legitimately the winner of the contest - not to deadlock trying to pick a winner to a better standard.
The primary goal isn't to represent, but to reduce misrepresentation to the point where we can literally live with it.
To me it's only illegitimate if this is coupled with unreasonable attempts to keep us from improving the system as technology and knowledge give us the means.
