Dear Sir,
I have been asked to explain how proportional representation and in particular the Single Transferable Vote, would benefit the people of my constituency. It is a good question because electoral reform is sometimes seen as a rather esoteric subject of not much relevance to the ordinary voter. However, recent events have shown this to be untrue.
There is a direct relationship between those MPs involved in the expenses scandal and those in safe seats. By a safe seat I mean one in which it is almost impossible to unseat the sitting MP, even though 60% of their electorate may have voted against them. Anne Winterton won her seat in 2005 with a comfortable majority but more people voted against her than voted for her.
Proportional representation requires some form of preferential voting system and a majority of those voting for the winning candidate. A vote for the candidate with the smallest total would be transferred to the voter's next preference. Thus a sitting MP may be more easily removed because, unlike at present, they would require a MAJORITY of those voting to support them. Tactical voting would be a thing of the past.
By making each vote count, every MP would need to serve all their constituents. This would help to reinvigorate our democracy. That can only be good for everyone.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Peter Hirst
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Congleton
Rushton Drive
Middlewich
Printed by Peter Hirst, 33 Rushton Drive, Middlewich CW10 0NJ. Published and promoted by Linda Hemsley, on behalf of Congleton Liberal Democrats, all at 43 Drumber Lane, Scholar Green, ST7 3LW tel no 01782 516361.
Follow the party's activity on...