I READ with enthusiasm the news that the SNP is to debate changing the electoral system used for future Holyrood elections at its October conference ("SNP to debate merits of single transferable vote system at conference ", The Herald, July 25. The present additional member system (AMS) used to elect our MSPs, whilst being fairer than the abysmal first past the post (FPTP) used for Westminster, still has many flaws that could be ironed out by the introduction of a fully proportional system such as the single transferable vote (STV).

First, AMS, being a hybrid system, still carries the inherent unfairness of 73 of our MSPs being elected by FPTP, with all the anomalies that system contains. The "winner takes all" result is grossly unfair to all the voters who backed the "loser" and who therefore may believe their votes have been wasted. Even though FPTP served the SNP very well in its 2015 Westminster landslide, with 56 out of 59 seats, it was honest and decent enough to admit that even though FPTP was beneficial to it on that occasion it was still opposed to it, considered it to be unfair and would be happy to see the back of it. However, as the Westminster electoral system is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government has no say over it, not so the case with Holyrood elections and it is encouraging to see that consideration is now being given to seeing the end of FPTP, once and for all, in Scottish elections.

Furthermore, the 56 "additional members" are allocated in such a way as to balance up the success that any party might enjoy in the FPTP element. This why the SNP only received four "additional members" in 2016, simply because it was so successful in the FPTP count. Again, inherently unfair.

Secondly, the Scottish electorate is already familiar with STV, having used this system since the local council elections of 2007. We quickly adapted to the concept of multi-member wards and to numbering the candidates in order of preference, hence the move to STV would not be a step into the unknown, simply an expansion of a system that we already use. The arithmetic for STV at Holyrood could be very straightforward. We could elect two MSPs per existing constituency, resulting in a total of 146 elected members, an increase of only 17. Or we could enlarge the size of existing constituencies, reducing the number to let's say, 41, each electing three MSPs resulting in a total of 123, a reduction of six on present numbers. Both suggestions are equally doable.

Finally, STV is simply fairer. The more proportional the system, the fairer it is.

We should keep our fingers crossed that by the next Holyrood election AMS and its poisonous element of FPTP are consigned to electoral history, and that maximising proportionality is the watchword for all future elections in Scotland.

Alan Carroll,

24 The Quadrant, Clarkston, Glasgow.