Antonio Voce and Ashley Kirk’s excellent article (How could Britain look under proportional representation?, 22 July) provides a helpful view on how Britain’s electoral landscape could look under different voting systems.
Perhaps most striking is that whichever the proportional representation (PR) system used, when compared with first past the post they all make a good job of producing a parliament that reflects how the nation voted. There is not as much difference between them as enthusiasts of each PR system might expect, in terms of each party winning its fair proportion of seats, and in terms of voters therefore getting a fair say in who governs us.
It is also important to emphasise that the numerics of the systems proposed do not have to be as they are in the article’s examples. So using the additional member system does not mean we need to increase our parliament to more than 1,000 MPs. Using a single transferable vote does not mean we have to have constituencies any bigger than, say, four to seven MPs. And party list districts do not have to be as big as the official English regions or the whole of Scotland. PR for Westminster can be designed with MPs much more localised, if that is what the people want.
The much-needed new Westminster election system coming our way of course needs to be as good as we can make it. This requires both expert design and legitimacy with the public. If Andy Burnham is as good as his word to date, he will set up a National Commission on Electoral Reform, as already proposed by the all party parliamentary group for fair elections.
Michael Bursill
Reigate, Surrey
Antonio Voce and Ashley Kirk note that voters may resist replacing a system they understand. Yet, do they truly understand its absurd outcomes of first past the post? For instance, both Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and Theresa May in 2017 secured exactly 42.4% of the vote. Under first past the post, this gave Thatcher a landslide majority of 144, but left May with a minority, reliant on the DUP to form a government.
While the additional member system is often touted as a British compromise, it introduces its own flaws. If we are to reform our democracy, the only sensible choice is the single transferable vote (STV). By providing a choice of several constituency MPs, STV forces politicians to compete for our votes, effectively eliminating safe seats and complacency. Crucially, it delivers a truly representative parliament where parties must work together in coalition to govern.
Tom Beard
Worcester Park, London
