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.