It is clear that the current First Pass the Post voting system is not delivering representative democracy. For instance how have we ceded so much of our sovereignty to the EU without reference to the people, how have we imported five million immigrants against the will of the people. How many international treaties have been signed on our behalf which are not in our interests. Yes our voting system need shaking up. Personaly I think Proportional Representation would very very quickly lead to a government and program which would respect the will of the people. It would also stop all these minority fringe groups from hyjacking the major parties as PR encourages smaller parties which have to work together, these smaller parties will be mich more sensitive to their electorate. The result ,a representative coalision which represents the broad majority of views in Britain.

John, Oldham,

Anybody who promolgates a proportional voting system should look at the practical results, as exemplified by Italy! The directly proportional system in Italy has lead to:
- the use of 'party lists' to choose MPs to balance the party members to the national proportional vote, thus preventing the accountability of an MP to constituency members;
- lack of accountability of MPs who can look after their own narrow interests without any voters' penalties at the next election!;
- many parties (22?) represented in parliament, most of them very small;
- a constant need for coalition government with unreliable partners;
- undue power of small coalition partners to block legislation supported by the majority of the populace, by threatening to break the coalition;
- no inducement to have any form of national consensus;
- ineffective government lacking both domestic and foreign clout.
The first past the post system avoids these systemic weaknesses! Britain would change at its peril.

Peter Mearns, Aquileia, Italy

Dear Sir,
As ever, there is an assumption that strong government is good government. One of our problems is that we have too much government. Why should parties be able to carry legislation which does not have majority support? It's mind-boggling that we have ever allowed such a system to develop. Give me weak government where new legislation can clear the hurdle only if it carries cross-party support.
Yours faithfully

Jamie Maitland, Kirkcudbright, Scotland

"Yet proportional representation would mean that much smaller minorities would wield undue influence, as without them it would not be possible to form a stable administration."

True, oh so very true.
Here in Norway the last government was a collection of right wing parties. The Christian Peoples Party had 6% of the vote and its leader Kjell Magne Bondevik demanded and was given the office of Prime Minister, his price for joining the coaliton. He had a cabinet minister whose party had 2% of the vote!
PR allows a plethora of parties to be elected, but the subsequent horse trading to form a government allows the majority to be ruled by the minority, not really an improvement on the first past the post system.

Bob Fisher, Tjøme, Norway

I would think the latest PR based election result in Scotland would support the whole case for it. The scottish have got what they wanted for their country, they kicked labour out and managed to moderate the more excessive calls for Scottish independence from the SNP and instead got a more moderate push for greater powers in the assembly. With a first past the post system they would either be stuck with an un-popular labour party due to not wanting independence or voting in an SNP party that would have had the power to do what they liked!

From the reporting in this article it sounds like this report was based on the results of piece mail changes made and voters being confused with a brand new system they've never used before... shock horror. I don't know how anyone can look at Westminster today and tell me with a straight face everything is A OK.

Stephen, Maidstone, UK

Despite all the arguments of the authors of this report the heart of issue is that First Past the Post is undemocratic where there are more than two political parties.The result today is that Labour got 35% at the last election and 55% of the vote .How can this be fair and democratic.As multi party politics is here to stay we see the proportion of votes for Labour and Conservatives combined decline election afte election (72% of those who voted last time). Increasingly we will see results like 2005 where a distorted result is produced.How distorted does it have to get before the powers that be see sense ! Also it amazes me that the Conservatives continue to cling on to the hope that FTTP will deliver them an election victory.

Richard Dawson, Chester, UK

You have chosen very select pieces of information from this report. On p6 it states: "All the new systems have achieved a higher degree of proportionality in outcome than First Past the Post, although only STV in Northern Ireland has achieved what academic observers consider to be close to genuine proportionality. While the FPTP system for Westminster currently favours the Labour Party, it is capable of large swings in seats won by two major parties and this is less predictable with the advent of a relatively storng third party, the Liberal Democrats".

Also, in its conclusion the report states, ... "STV, which can deliver a high degree of proportionality and maintain constituency links..." and gives examples of where it has been tried: Rep. of Ireland and the Australian Senate.

The current unfair system favours Labour to a startling degree. To win the next General election the Conservatives have to achieve over 40% of the vote while Labour only has to get 35%.

Janice Small, Sevenoaks, Kent

It has been already observed "There is no situation so dire that politicans cannot make it worse".
I cannot but think, with my awful anti EU bias, this latest fiasco
ranks with many other attempts to `Europeanise` us under the
cloak of "modernisation".
We have a Crown Prosecution Service which daily becomes a
vehicle for investigation with powers to instruct the Police.
We have a desperate attempt to abolish a user friendly system of weights and measures.
Sooner or later, sadly it may well be too late, the UK will realise just what a confidence trick this " great and wonderful"
European Union really is.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

Delivering a fair voting system is not the "pet project" of any particular party, but an aim which unites members across all major parties in the UK and which would deliver for all voters a meaningful say in the outcome of elections.
Under the current FPTP voting system voters in traditionally "safe seats" find that the outcome is already effectively certain in their area, even prior to a single vote having been cast. With the increasing concentration on swing voters in the key marginals, it is increasingly the case that a small minority of electors wield massively disproportionate influence whilst the majority is left practically disenfranchised.
How can anyone seriously defend such a situation? A clear majority of the world's voting systems incorporate some form of PR. Are we really to believe that the British are too easily confused to have a fairer, more sophisticated system which allows for greater choice?

Michael Calderbank, London, UK

"Yet proportional representation would mean that much smaller minorities would wield undue influence, as without them it would not be possible to form a stable administration."

Not True.
"Stable" in this context is just what we do not want !
There is far, far too much government. One of your commentators calls for us to kill a Quango, which illustrates this.
PR will assure less government, more consultation to get a consensus and better thought out laws.

Your advocacy, in the face of the experience of the rest of the world rests on the technical drawbacks, and really just goes to show how "Britain knows best" is still extant.

John Gregory Flinn, Béalencourt, France