MY only surprise about the election is that so many people who should know better are so surprised that the outcome seems so distorted. Rebecca McQuillan deserves full marks for being the only commentator I have seen to highlight the role of our electoral system (“A voting system that is past its sell-by date”, The Herald, June 10). In summary, her column says “it's the electoral system, stupid”.
However, the implication in her article, that a change to any so-called “proportional representation” system will do, needs a whole lot of qualification. She notes that “British voters rejected electoral reform in 2010”. They didn't. What they rejected was the Alternative Vote system in one-member constituencies, which is no more “proportional” than first past the post. You can't represent different views with a system that elects only one person at a time and British voters were given no other option in the referendum.
She also states that the Holyrood and local authority election systems “improve proportionality while retaining a constituency link”. Correct. But nobody seems to notice that 57 per cent of the members at Holyrood are still elected by first past the post. The remainder are elected in seven-member seats, which makes it very difficult in my experience to establish links with Regional List members.
The single transferable vote (STV) system, used for local authorities in Scotland, does retain a personal link to all elected members, in that you are far more likely to have voted for one of them. However, the artificial restriction to either three or four members per constituency reduces the party proportionality of the outcome and increases “wasted” votes. As Ms McQuillan says, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens all support electoral reform (in fact STV). As they have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, I don't know why they don't just go ahead and implement proper STV for Holyrood and local authority elections.
Thomas G F Gray,
4A Auchinloch Road, Lenzie.
REBECCA McQuillan alludes to the first past the post electoral system as being "absurd and undemocratic”. I do not see anything absurd in the candidate who polls the most votes being elected as the democratic choice of their particular constituency. What I do consider absurd are the number of "no chance aspirants" who stand for election and inevitably forfeit their £500 deposit in the process.
At least first past the post is a simple system clearly understandable to the voter as opposed to the elaborate single transferable vote process previously thrust on the electorate in Scottish local elections.
Allan C Steele,
22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.
We boast about our age-old democratic system and that the will of the people dictates our collective future but nothing could be further from the truth. The latest General Election clearly demonstrates that in a multi-party system in the absence of co-operation between fellow-travellers that popular opinion cannot prevail over the interests of a well-organised minority group.
The UK population is 65 million-plus, of which 46,843,705 are registered to vote and the recent turnout was 68.7per cent. The Apathy Party secured 31.3 per cent of possible votes, which is greater than the winning Conservative Party achieved with its 13,667,231. Less than one-third of the electorate and barely one-fifth of the inhabitants of this sceptred isle voted for the party whic will now, after a bit of horse-trading with the only party which will listen to their bribes, get another shot at clobbering the poor. The UK GDP will continue to be taxed at a rate substantially less than the average of our European competitors forcing government to continue to borrow and to justify its austerity policy which can only accelerate the collapse of our service-based economy.
Please explain to me what is democratic about a system of governance that actively facilitates a well-funded minority group enforcing its will against the wishes of the majority. Democracy, government of the people by the people? A wiser man than me once said “If democracy worked they wouldn’t let us have it”.
David J Crawford,
Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street, 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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel