What’s not to like about voting reform?

Re: “Electoral changes would bring instability,” column, June 5.

Lawrie McFarlane opposes electoral reform because governments will no longer be able to claim a majority of seats unless they have also earned a majority of the vote.

No more false majority governments wherein parties wield majority power with the support of only one-third of the electorate.

No more wasted votes where two-thirds of the electorate find themselves without a representative in Parliament.

No more strategic voting since every vote counts, and the composition of Parliament reflects exactly what the voters have determined.

Extreme right-wing or left-wing ideologues will, of course, find it more difficult to claim power and impose their agenda on an unwilling electorate.

Instead, parties will be rewarded for co-operation and compromise, and radical shifts from right to left, with successive governments spending their first months in office undoing the worst excesses of their predecessors, will become a thing of the past. So, what’s not to like? If Conservatives fear that electoral reform will diminish their chances of forming another government, they have only themselves to blame, for the problem lies in their policies and their recent behaviour in office, not in a modernized voting system.