General Election

Press, 4 December 1978, Page 16

General Election

Sir, — Cedric Mentipiay (November 28) claims that proportional representation would destroy the independence of the electorates and would involve a loss of human rights. I suggest that only minor adjustments would be required to make our system more representative and they would neither destroy the independence of the electorates nor involve a loss of human rights. We could increase the number of members of Parliament by 10 per cent. These nine members would not be elected by electorates; they would be assigned to the parties to make the representation more proportional after the election of the other 92. In 1975 Social Credit would have got four of these extra members; Values would have got three; and Labour would have got two. National would still have held an absolute majority of 14 seats (National: 55, Labour: 34, Social Credit: 4, Values: 3). In 1978 Social Credit would get eight of the extra nine seats; and Values, one. ■— Yours, etc., STEVEN C. DARNOLD November 28, 1978.

Sir, — It is news to me that the theory of Social Credit is simple or that Michael Savage was a follower of Major Douglas, facts that surprisingly were not well advertised in the election campaign. Proportional representation may have worked in some countries with a different philosophy of life from ours, but that does not mean that we, because of a single instance, should rush to scrap our present system, which has the virtue of simplicity. Anyway, what exactly is the form of proportional representation demanded? My main point was that Social Credit should broaden the base of its appeal to attract many voters who are sceptical of the claim that a radical money theory can reform the world. Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding, I voted Social Credit not because of but in spite of Douglas’s theory. —- Yours, etc., V. F. WILKINSON. December 3. 1978. Sir, — The advocates of alternatives to our system of voting could find that changes in our social

systems would result. In “The Press” (November 30) the pros and cons of liquor advertising in Sweden show that iegisiation the present Riksdag (Parliament) proposes to implement is unnecessary, as the previously lax laws had in themselves controlled liquor sales due to the high cost of those containing a high alcohol content. The liquor legislation of the previous Riksdag was liberalised during the 40 years in office, but countered to some extent by enforcing the writing of antiliquor essays in schools. Even when as a child I spent some time in Sweden, I well remember the controversy there was regarding the prohibition then prevailing over 40 years ago. Swedes are afraid that the present combined party Riksdag which bans advertising on health and social grounds may move away from consumerism towards an authoritarian centrally controlled society. — Yours, etc., L. E. REID. November 29, 1978.