Sir, Alan Johnson’s proposal for a referendum on electoral reform, where “we offer the public the two options” of alternative vote plus (AVP) and first past the post (FPTP), betrays the undiminished arrogance of the political class (letters, May 26). No Parliament, let alone the “duck house” Parliament, has the moral right to limit the free choice of the people as to how they elect their representatives. Moreover, this proposal is especially indefensible because there is at least one other well-known system, the single transferable vote (STV), which has many attractions, not least an absence of party lists.

Mr Johnson admits that “narrow party political advantage” led the Labour Government to ditch AVP; it is now blowing the dust off it for the same reason, in the vain hope that a referendum on polling day will restore its credit.

This latest self-serving attempt at manipulation provides further evidence that a randomly selected citizens’ assembly — which would consult on all options and then put recommendations direct to a referendum — is the only acceptable mechanism for future reforms.

Charles Scanlan

London NW8

Sir, It is good to hear Alan Johnson calling for electoral reform, something long overdue. However, AVP would still allow the parties to ensure that their favourites get elected. It also benefits the larger parties.

We should not accept such a sop; it will not engender real change. The only acceptable new voting system is STV. This is readily understood and removes the bias for the established parties by obviating the need for tactical voting. We also need a “none of the above” option which, if this is the majority, the election would be rerun with all of the initial candidates barred from candidacy.

Alain Williams

Watford, Herts

Sir, Proportional representation does not work. In Israel, minority right-wing parties control the political process thereby preventing peace between Israel and Palestine.

Duncan Anderson

Immingham, North Lincs

Explore Letters

• Feedback