Letters RSS Feed


Electoral reform

12:00pm Monday 8th February 2010 in Letters

IN your Comment article, “Restoring a vital link” (Echo, Feb 4), the explanation about the “Alternative Vote” appears to have a slight error. It states that any MP would be elected by at least 50 per cent of constituents; should that not have read “by at least 50 per cent of the total percentage of constituents who actually voted”?

David Preston, Darlington.

Comments(3)

George Appleby says...
3:31pm Mon 8 Feb 10

With First Transferable Voting NO votes are wasted. Are they?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

George Appleby says...
3:43pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Sorry!
'Single Transferable Voting' is what I mean.

By entering that on google there is a full explanation.

The main point about it for me is that it gets away from party dominance.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Graeme_r says...
1:02am Tue 9 Feb 10

Yes it should have said that but it's important to point out that it's a bit like surveys asking if you agree or strongly agree. If no one gets 50% as choice number one, it's 50% of those who expressed the candidate of their first or second choice or sometimes third choice. It's not proportional and will still dis-enfranchaise many voters. Brown will spin it as Electoral Reform but it's a system of his choice, not the Electorates. Cameron though wanting to stick with first past the post shows how much he really wants change.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree