I DO not understand the obsession some people have with the worst form of proportional representation - the Single Transferable Vote (STV) advocated for Scotland by Dr James Gilmour (Letters, July 1).
It may have some merit for Westminster given that even the worst forms of proportional representation will always be better than first past the post, but to advocate that the Scottish Parliament with its imperfect but superior voting system should change to the inferior STV system is just silly.
Only three countries in the world use STV for national elections. Ireland, Malta and Australia (for the Senate). Malta and Australia have both been forced to modify their systems so much so that they both now more resemble list systems while Ireland suffers from very low levels of proportionality compared to other countries and additionally has a system that leads to particularly low female representation as well as excessive parochialism amongst elected representatives. It stands as an indictment of FPTP that even the Irish system is superior but why would we want it in Scotland?
The Scottish electoral system certainly needs to be improved but it should be improved by increasing proportionality, not decreasing it. Scandinavian style adjustment seats should be introduced at the national level so that parties' share of the seats matches their share of the votes as closely as possible.
The virtue of STV is supposedly that it allows voters to choose between candidates in the same party. In the first instance this can also be achieved by open list systems, but secondly why is this such a virtue when voters will typically have no idea who these candidates are? Certainly in May I voted SNP on the sole basis of the party, I had never heard of the candidate and still could not name him. Most voters are the same; people vote for parties and the electoral system should reflect this.
Iain Paterson,
2F Killermont View,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article