PR isn't a realistic voting choice for Britain

Electoral workers count ballots during elections in Nuuk, Greenland - Credit: Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images

Mick O’Hare’s article shows that there is no such thing as a mathematically perfect electoral system, though several get quite close. In any case PR is not the only aim of electoral reform, albeit the most important.

There are several other failings of the current FPTP system, electing by a simple majority in single-seat constituencies, and many of these are a result of using single seat constituencies. These faults include safe seats, tactical voting, no choice of candidates within parties, election on a minority vote, low vote utilisation, no choice of MP for a constituent to turn to with a problem, the same party MP for decades (or ever), etc.

If ever the UK decides to change there are likely to be two main contenders: STV, using multi-member seats as used in Ireland, or AMS using single seat constituencies with extra ‘top-up’ seats, as used for the Scottish parliament. This latter system retains the faults of the single seat constituencies while adding two more – having two types of MP (which are the more valid? the ones that faced the electorate, or the ones taken off a party list?) and the possibility of gaming the system, which is what Alex Salmond is planning to do and has already been tried in Italy.
David Brandwood
Broadstone Dorset

Mick O’Hare’s article is a salutary reminder that it is futile to complain about FPTP without also specifying the system we should change to.

The practical alternatives to FPTP are some form of AMS or STV. Alternative Vote can be discarded (though not for by-elections) both for not even pretending to produce anything like proportionality in the Commons, and also because it was (rightly) rejected in that misconceived 2011 referendum.

AMS is a move in the right direction, but it suffers both from relying entirely on FPTP, with all its defects, in the election of constituency MPs, and from using a pure PR system, with all its defects, in selecting the top-up MPs.

Ireland now has 100 years of experience of STV, and has twice rejected in referendums attempts to revert to FPTP.

The results are not perfectly proportional, but they approximate to it very well. It is to my mind by far the best compromise electoral system available.
Richard Burnett-Hall
London

I’d like to see PR, but I also want a lot more transparency on candidates.

I want to know about their property and assets, their business connections and positions on old-boy and girl networks, their stances and records on all forms of discrimination, how many jobs they’ll need to maintain a perhaps expensive lifestyle if elected, their attitude to an elected second chamber and to ending the “honours” system, how much they have donated to political parties and what they have received in return, what freebies they’ve had and from whom, and how much sitting candidates have claimed in expenses from the public purse.

And that’s just off the top of my head.
Amanda Norrie, London W3

I look forward to the day when we have an election process that actually delivers a government that is representative of the electorate and where all votes count. In the meantime, here are two things which could be implemented that would have an immediate effect and make a real difference.

Remove all reference to political parties on the ballot paper and anywhere in the vicinity of the polling station. This would mean that people would have to give some thought as to who they are choosing rather than blindly follow party lines.

The PM should be elected by parliament after the election. This would lead to a PM who has the backing of the majority of the elected members, irrespective of their party loyalty.
Phil Jackman

• Have your say by emailing theneweuropean@archant.co.uk. Our deadline for letters is Tuesday at 9am for inclusion in Thursday’s edition. Please be concise – letters over five paragraphs long may be edited before printing.