From Mr M. A. Reynolds, MRPharmS
SIR,-May I thank Mr Medlow for his letter (PJ, July 1, p13), which outlined details about the Electoral Reform Society so succinctly. May I be permitted to add a little more information as outlined to me by a trusted colleague, a staunch Liberal and local councillor.
As we are all aware, following civil war and input from Cromwell some 400 years ago, Parliament eventually settled down to sensible debate across a divide of two sword-lengths, presumably based on the fact that there are only two sides to every argument. Known as opposition politics, the battle of words continues to this day. While this democratic system is not absolutely perfect - and there is no system that ever will be - we as a nation are proud of it. It is a well respected political system which has served the country's needs extremely well and has stood the test of time.
Within our cherished democracy, the quest and ambition of politicians and their parties is to gain power within the greatest debating chamber in the land. The Liberals, back in the1880s, realised that, by changing the system to one of "proportional represention", due to the simple mathematics they might gain control by possibly holding the balance of power. So, by inviting members of other political parties who were sympathetic to this principle to join them, they would add "legitimacy" to their cause. Over 100 years later, having changed the name and the personalities, their proposals and arguments continue to be presented.
History continues to record the emergence of other parliaments organised under various proportional representation systems resulting in consensus politics. The letters column of the PJ is not the correct place to comment about their overall virtues or shortcomings.
As I stated, candidates for our Council stand as individuals and, although they all have differing backgrounds, they represent themselves. Mr Medlow has confirmed that the single transferable vote enhances the representation of minority groups (but to the detriment of whom?), which basically confirms my stated viewpoint.
In respect of costs, despite reassurance, I am not convinced that the more complex STV system costs the same as the simple X system, as the time taken to evaluate is so obviously different and time costs serious money these days. It was not long ago that the votes were counted by a handful of volunteers from our Society on a Saturday. The STV system could certainly not be undertaken so simply.
Voting down; confusion up! Members of our Society, including Council members, still do not understand the voting system. Are we meant to? We claim we understand medicines!
I believe that STV has not been an effective servant of our Society.
In respect of membership of political parties, given the statistics at the last general election, I am not sure how Mr Medlow could square the circle with his current political leader if the Electoral Reform Society achieved its ambitions.
We are all entitled to our opposing viewpoints. But that's politics.
Michael Reynolds
Christchurch, Dorset