Problematic polls

Prof Hugh Pennington has a very strange idea of fairness in a democracy (Letters, 11 July). We claim to operate a system of “representative democracy”, so the first requirement is that the elected assembly (in this case, the Westminster Parliament) should be prop - erly representative of those who voted.

But at every UK general election since 1945 the defective voting system has left around half of those who voted without any representation in the House of Commons.

Worse still, every majority government has represented only a minority of those who voted.

The obscene Conservative majority of 144 seats in 1983 represented only 42 per cent of those who voted. The equally obscene Labour majority of 177 seats in 1997 represented only 43 per cent of those who voted.

And we must remember that the defective first-past-thepost voting system has twice at critic al times elected the wrong government, ie the party that won fewer votes than the party it replaced in government (1951 and February 1974).

It is a strange concept of fairness that a party should win the vote but lose the election.

As Tommy Sheppard, MP, wrote (Platform, 10 July), we know how to do much better to give ourselves a properly

representative parliament. It is time to make the change. (DR) JAMES GILMOUR East Parkside, Edinburgh

Hugh Pennington raises the important point of the problem of using referendums as a policy decider, ie it is more than high time we had some ground rules for this.

It cannot be right that major constitutional ch an ge,eg leaving the EU, or Scottish in depen dence,c an be decided, perhaps, on a low turn-out and on 50 per cent of the vote plus one.

There should be a turn-out threshold and there should be a victory threshold (say 60 per cent of those who vote).

The EU referendum was a prime example of how not to do it!

WILLIAM BALLANTINE

Dean Road, Bo’ness

Prof Hugh Penning ton complains about the irreversibility of referendums, yet the Swiss system lays great store by them as an assurance of their democracy, evidently to public satisfaction and help - ing make their country more truly democratic than perhaps any other nation.

In contrast, the EU and, notably, its unelected commissioners, appointed as its predominant executives, are justly crititicised for a marked democratic deficit and tendency to have repeated public votes after “wrong” outcomes.

In the UK, we have just seen a decision by the “Establishment” evidently overruling the public’s choice in a referendum, making many voters rather lose faith in British democracy.

Voters have been accused by the “great and the good” of inadequate political understanding and even ofxe nophobia in making their choice.

If we cannot be trusted by the Establishment to decide our political choices then whither our British democracy ?

(DR) CHARLES WARDROP Viewlands Road West, Perth