the problem is that argument 1 is idiotic because in this case the "no one" is, in fact, Reform UK voters. i hate everything about their worldview, but that's how they voted and they deserve representation that reflects that
The best arguments against proportional representation seem to be: (1) no one wants that many members of Reform UK in the Commons and (2) every election would ultimately come down to the Lib Dems (maybe plus a regional party / the Greens) deciding whether Tories or Labour get to form the government.
It’s a fair one to people who insist that a local region of support should get a party like PC almost as many seats as Reform, on the idea that they have concentrated support in one region of the country.
back in 1994 I was super upset that the UK got four separate bites at the apple on qualifying for the World Cup, I thought it was bullshit. They should have had to field one team, same as we couldn't field an Iowa team.
Not even unionists in Scotland root for the English team, and the English only pretend to root for us to make us feel bad for wanting them to lose. It's not four pops at it for the UK, it's four pops for four countries which won't celebrate each other's win except superficially.
It's not like if there was an Iowa team because no Iowan actually thinks they are a nation. We say that about ourselves with all that the word actually implies.
you've been in Union with England since hundreds of years before most European nations ever existed. It's very funny to me how much your national identity depends on FIFA being willing to grandfather the Home Nations in as a condition to get you to join.
you are making the common american error of assuming that nation refers to passport rather than the bubble of loyalty inside people's heads, which is also why you're describing most european nations as new
