Present voting system sold our birthright

MAY I support Tom Richmond’s plea for good parliamentary candidates to result from whatever electoral system emerges (Yorkshire Post, April 23).

I am in receipt of a pamphlet claiming to have support across members of all parties who favour the “one person one vote” system which they claim has served this country so well in the past. It contains the fact that the referendum alone is costing £91m and switching to AV would cost even more and that this money could be better spent on 2,503 doctors, 6,297 teachers, 8,107 nurses, 35,885 hip replacements and 69,832 school places.

Yet this system over the past 60 years, following the necessity of being self-sufficient and creative during the dark days of 1939-1945, has seen our gas, water and electricity sold to foreigners.

Our birthright has been sold and the mass of people who keep the wheels of progress turning have been marginalised, treated with disrespect and placed in jobs which are often unfulfilling or so demanding in time and skill requirements as to be very stressful. Even the Iron Lady would have difficulty in justifying the plight of small shopkeepers.

The pamphlet indicates that under the AV system the four contestants – who have obviously been capable of running straight down their lane – the one who came fourth could win. It might appear unfair, but if he has more common sense than the others, and a wider experience of life, I would not mind a bit.

From: Jeremy Belk, Henley Avenue, Rawdon, Leeds.

YOU highlighted (Yorkshire Post, April 22) a survey by Saga that suggests that more than half of voters over 50 are set to vote No in the May 5 referendum about changing the voting system from first-past-the-post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) system.

As a retired person myself, can I make a plea that people in my age group think very carefully before rejecting this proposed reform?

It can be argued that FPTP worked reasonably well in the 1950s when the UK was dominated by two parties, Labour and Conservative, but it leaves a huge democratic deficit in 2011 in our more pluralist political system.

The AV system, while not perfect, does much to address this democratic deficit, while keeping, as now, constituency MPs and making it harder than under FPTP for extremist parties to be elected.

The younger generations will have to live for many years with the consequences of this referendum, so let us help to give us all a Parliamentary voting system which allows the voices of more ordinary voters to be heard.

From: David H Rhodes, Keble Park North, Bishopthorpe, Near York.

The referendum on a new method of voting is a costly waste of time. To get a proper democratic representation there are two methods available. One, proportional representation where seats are allocated to all parties as a percentage of the total votes cast; secondly, making voting a legal requirement so that the first past the post candidate could potentially represent the majority.

This would still be more democratic than a contrived candidate by AV. Does anybody think that leader Ed Miliband was the Labour Party’s preferred first choice – but he got it.

The other question remains: why bother when 80 per cent of legislation comes direct from Brussels? Now that would be a good idea for a referendum, wouldn’t it?

From: Ian Smith, Colston Close, Bradford.

COULD it be that Caroline Flint MP doesn’t want AV (Yorkshire Post, April 22) because 62 per cent of voters in her constituency did not vote for her in 2010? Perhaps it is she who is “damaging politics even further”.

From: John DC Piper, West Burton, Leyburn.

INSTEAD of all the time, money and hot air being wasted on the Alternative Vote, it would be more sensible to consider compulsory voting for Parliamentary elections. Ending the general apathy and couldn’t-care-less attitude of so many would then ensure we have a genuine democracy.

Abolish the Lords

From: David W Wright, Easingwold, North Yorkshire.

THERE is now an overwhelming case for the abolition of the House of Lords and to reform this archaic and much abused system. Now with 792 members following Dave Cameron’s addition of 117 since his election to Government, it is ludicrous to continue with this charade of rewarding cronies, failed MPs, and benefactors of the various political parties simply to ensure that Government policies are rubber-stamped.

The cronyism of the Blair and Brown years – and now Cameron – has shown how the House of Lords has been dumbed-down and abused and it is now imperative that true democracy is enacted by having a second chamber that is wholly elected at the same time as the General Election for the Westminster Parliament.

It is time to get rid of this out-of-date institution and the opportunity for former MPs and fellow travellers to join the ermine gravy train.

Special case to investigate

From: Brian Wells, Hebden Bridge.

Your news item “Objections to wind turbines set to fail” (Yorkshire Post, April 12) quoted a chief planning officer’s report as saying “very special circumstances submitted by the applicant are considered to clearly outweigh the harm the proposal would cause”.

Words such as these can be found in other planning officers’ reports and planning inspectors’ decisions. Does anyone challenge the validity of these statements?

Wind turbines are special if they are large enough to be obtrusive and unsympathetic to the landscape in which they are built.

There are so many of these machines already built and many more planned, offshore and onshore, that they cannot be classified as “special” and certainly not “very special”.

Would it not be appropriate to investigate how planning officers can, in various local authorities, parrot the “very special circumstances” mantra and not be challenged?