I HAVE no wish to impugn the integrity of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), but it is astonishing enough for the brouhaha about the iniquities of the electoral system following the recent General Election, to be centred upon the demise of the Labour Party, particularly in Scotland, the rise of the SNP, particularly in Scotland, the success of the Conservative Party achieving power at Westminster with only 37% per cent of the vote, the four million votes for Ukip vote resulting in only one seat, for the solution to be a form of proportional representation, while ignoring the circumstances that led to these results ("Damning verdict on 'divisive' UK voting system", The Herald, June 1).
It all started when the major parties lost the plot on Europe (mainly), and green issues. That gave rise to groundswell parties having support spread thinly across the UK, therefore a relatively few votes in many constituencies. And many other, more cranky groupings entered the proceedings, none having any chance of influencing policies far less of achieving power.
The ERS has missed the point. It is not PR we need, but a complete overhaul of the basic system. The £500 deposit required for a candidate to stand is vastly outdated - decades old, as is the qualification that decrees that the deposit be repaid on achieving five per cent of the vote. In one Holyrood constituency election we had the example of 19 candidates listed on a single ballot paper.
The deposit should be raised to, say £5,000, and the five per cent achievement target raised to 10 or
even 15 per cent. That would concentrate minds about the wisdom of standing, without impinging upon democratic rights. The deposit would be returned if the target were reached. Gravitating back to the major parties would enable greater influence to be brought to bear on favoured issues.
There is no surprise about the 2015 results. They could have been forecast - if the possibility of the extremes occurring exists, then the system needs changed, and needed changed. The snag was that the anomalous situation suited the two major parties, who remained content, so long as their turn came along with some regularity.
Douglas R Mayer,
76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.
THE criticisms of first past the post by the Electoral Reform Society and by you ("An electoral system in its death throes", Herald editorial, June 1) are fully justified, but they miss a fundamental defect: the system is designed to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority.
UK governments routinely achieve a majority of the Westminster seats and hence power on a minority of the votes. This time the Tories achieved a majority with only 37 per cent of the votes and take this as a mandate to impose their polices; despite the voters rejecting the Tories by approaching 2:1. True, the other parties' votes were smaller; but if the voters decided on the basis of the manifestos, there was, for example, a clear majority against full austerity and the bedroom tax. Yet the Government intends to impose their policies on the majority, as have past UK governments elected on a minority vote. What we need is a Campaign Against Minority Rule.
Alastair Wallace,
19 Lixmount Avenue, Trinity, Edinburgh.
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