Present voting system has led to a selfish, self-serving elite

ANTONY Beevor’s article (Yorkshire Post, April 9) on electoral systems was interesting, and his assertion that getting 25 historians to agree on anything was a remarkable achievement, I am sure is correct.

However, what would have been even more remarkable would have been if they had come up with the right answer which, I believe, is not the case.

Instead of meandering around in time, moving countries and picking random samples maybe they should have stuck to the UK and in particular the era since 1946. On this basis it would, from my point of view, show what an absolute disaster the first past the post system has been.

Our politicians have made little positive impact over the years and it has diminished as time has moved along.

As a nation we have spent more time going from left to right than we have moving forward. Spend, spend, spend then cut, cut, cut. Where is the forward progress in that?

In fact, when the same party has been elected for more than one election the situation has got worse with extremes of policy which have permanently damaged the nation. The most obvious example being Thatcherism which has led to a selfish, self-serving, elite in business and politics – professionalism and ethics have gone out the window.

The first past the post system has ensured we have had a minority of the voters ruling the country as on very few occasions haves a clear majority voted for the leading party.

From: John Riseley, Harcourt Drive, Harrogate, North Yorkshire.

DM Loxley (Yorkshire Post, Apri 6) neglects to share with us his reasons for despising the Alternative Vote system. But we are not missing much if they are no better thought through than his objection to the forthcoming referendum on this issue.

He declares it hypocritical, undemocratic and a paradox for AV to be selected via a referendum using first past the post. But there is actually no difference between FPTP and AV for an election, such as the May referendum, that offers only two options.

The reason for preferring AV in our Parliamentary elections is that these usually have more than two candidates. Using FPTP for these brings into play the effects of vote splitting and vote wasting.

Under FPTP, someone choosing to stand for election or to vote for the candidate they actually prefer may be harming the cause they sought to advance.

We don’t know Mr Loxley’s motives, but it seems pretty clear that those taking part in, or financing, the campaign against AV tend to be driven by concern for narrow party political advantage rather than love of democracy.

From: John Davies, Bank Top Road, Rotherham.

THE Electoral Commission’s leaflet, explaining the Alternative Vote referendum, has recently flopped onto our doormat.

The last question asks when the Alternative Vote system will be implemented if more people vote “yes” than “no”.

It seems that, if this is the case, it will be used after a review of the boundaries of the area that each MP represents.

This is due to happen between 2011 and 2013. At the end of the review, the UK Parliament will vote on adopting the new boundaries.

So, if MPs reject the review of constituency boundaries, it would seem that the Alternative Voting system would not be adopted.

So, despite how the electorate might vote in the forthcoming referendum, the decision whether to change the voting system still rests with MPs.