Dear Mr Clegg,

Please forgive me for troubling you at this very busy time for you. I have voted in every parliamentary election since 1959 and you have given me tremendous hope that, at the next one, my vote may affect the result for the very first time.

Many policy issues are important but even economic issues in the present situation have less of a long-term effect than electoral reform. Only electoral reform can ensure that voters get the economic and other policies that they vote for.

So I am sure that, despite the difficulty, you will not accept a deal with any party that does not guarantee electoral reform. Not only is it essential for the country to ensure that future government policy has been supported by a majority of voters, but it will be essential for Liberal Democrats to survive the inevitable fall in support for assisting either of the other two parties.

But what kind of electoral reform? Only STV would make MPs accountable to voters for all their actions, including their expenses claims. Also, although any old kind of proportional representation that another party is prepared to concede (such as AV+ or AMS) would help the Liberal Democrat party, such a system would provide only Party Proportional Representation. Only Lib Dem policy of STV in multi-member constituencies provides Proportional People Representation through choice voting as opposed to the Proportional Party Representation of other PR systems. Moreover, it is the only system that provides real freedom of choice for voters (which Mr Cameron should appreciate) and it is the system advocated by Conservative Action on Electoral Reform.

AV+ and AMS are deeply flawed systems of proportional representation. They would increase party power, which is probably why Labour reformers usually prefer them and would create two classes of MPs, which has caused many problems in Scotland and Wales. STV decreases party power and does not create two classes of MPs. Moreover, many boundary changes would be needed for AV+ or AMS. These would be controversial as each party would want to gerrymander and this would probably delay reform. With STV, groups of existing single-member constituencies would simply be grouped together to form multi-member ones.

If you have to compromise, I urge you to accept AV (not AV+). Although not proportional, it is STV (choice voting) in single-member constituencies. It would be an easy step from first past the post, it would get people used to voting by numbers and it would be only another small step later to change to STV.

A majority [52% (29 + 23)] voted on Thursday for parties that support choice voting (Lib Dems for STV and Labour for a referendum on AV).

I wish you every success in your negotiations.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Tuffin.
Chichester.

I had been debating with myself for some time whether to spoil my vote in protest against the silly, futile, inefficient and unfair voting system we have now or vote for the only party that supports STV – the Lib Dems - even though its candidate cannot win where I live. I live in a very safe constituency, where my vote cannot affect who becomes my MP or who becomes PM.

I’ve now decided to vote Lib Dem. Every vote for Lib Dem candidates is a vote for STV, even if the candidates do not win. Also, if my vote helps Lib Dems to beat Labour in the national votes but Labour wins more seats, that will help emphasize the case for some kind of proportional representation to the media and public – and to politicians.

If you did not know, you may like to visit They Work For You’s website at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ where you can set up e-mail alerts for mentions in any UK Parliament or Assembly of any subject that interests you. The alerts give you links to the website, where the full text is quoted and you can post your own comments.

The link http://www.123people.co.uk/ext/frm?ti=person%20finder&search_term=anthon... will lead you to some comments I have made in recent years on STV-PR.

Why should Council employees have to work late at night to count election votes? Why indeed? Why is it so important to have general election results overnight? Why indeed? Concern has been expressed recently that Council workers may deny us the excitement of overnight counts and election results, but I think this concern is misplaced.

Council employees are not the only people who can count pieces of paper and there may be people who are more experienced at the work. When I was a young bank clerk, colleagues and I were invited to count at elections and jumped at the opportunity to supplement our incomes. Now, there are many unemployed who may like the chance.

Some may suggest electronic counting – and perhaps voting - as the solution, but I would counsel caution, especially as regards electronic voting. There is a danger that accidental or deliberate mis-programming or a faulty machine could produce a wrong result. It is essential to have a robust audit trail to check the count and ensure an accurate result. Pieces of paper still provide the most reliable audit trail.

However, is it really vital to have a quick result? One of the most specious arguments I have heard against STV is that the more complicated counting process would take longer than First Past The Post. If speed is to be the only criterion, we may as well do away with elections altogether and settle for a dictatorship!

First Past The Post elections can be counted quicker than STV ones, but STV elections produce fairer results. STV elections produce more accurate results than First Past The Post ones in the sense that STV elections produce the results that voters want. First Past The Post elections usually don’t.

Accuracy and fairness are more important than speed.

I dedicate this blog to the memory of Keith Mothersson who died on 4 July 2009. He was a keen electoral reformer, Supporter of STV Action and member of the Electoral Reform Society. He took a special interest in protecting the integrity of elections under all voting systems. He was implacably opposed to electronic counting. He knew that his sincerity and enthusiasm could sometimes make him a pain in the neck to those who disagreed with him or did not completely share his views, but he and his campaigning zeal will be very much missed.

To condemn all forms of proportional representation because of the faults in one of them (the Israeli for example) is about as sensible as condemning all music because one does not like, say, rock or opera.  Please click on "Israeli electoral system: a pre-emptive response"  under "News from elsewhere" for a very thoughtful view of the subject.

Today is the 90th anniversary of the first British general election in which women could vote. The sad truth is that, except for those who live in one of the few marginal constituencies, their votes are valueless and, of course, this is also true for men. Further, it will be true for 16-17 year-olds if they get the vote so long as we continue to use a 19th century voting system in the 21st century.

Britain needs a voting system in which all votes - by men and women of all ages wherevever they live - have a realistic chance of being effective. We need the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. This allows voters to choose, and express preferences between, candidates of the same and different parties so, if a voter's first preference is ineffective, a later preference may still be effective. Almost as a side effect, STV would provide a proportional and representative House of Commons, in which one party would be unable to rule on the basis of only 35% of the votes.

Michael Portillo on This Week (BBC 1), 6/7 November 2008:

Some commentators have compared the mood in the USA this week with the mood in the
UK in 1997 when Labour swept the Conservatives from power in a landslide victory, but there is a significant difference.  Barack Obama won an overall majority of the popular vote (i.e.

In response to Question 9 of the Government's consultation (which ends on Friday 26 September 2008) about why more people don't vote and whether it would help to have weekend voting, I have replied:

"I live in the safe Conservative constituency of Chichester.  Voting Labour or Liberal Democrat would not help to elect a Labour or Liberal Democrat MP or Government because neither party can win the seat.  Voting Conservative would not help to elect an extra Conservative MP or a Conservative Government because the party will win the seat anyway.

A Conservative MP complained in this morning's "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 that a travel guide contradicted itself by stating that the "Thatcher regime" was unpopular and won general elections.  I don't want to take sides on whether it was a good or bad regime but it is true that it was unpopular and yet won general elections.  This is because of the voting system and I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the interviewer did not pick the point up.