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 The £500 deposit required for a candidate to stand is vastly outdated - decades old, as is the qualification that decrees that the deposit be repaid on achieving five per cent of the vote.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.