Proportional vote

Press, 28 November 1987, Page 24

Proportional vote

Sir,—P. J. Saxby (November 19) supports proportional representation to save Labour Party embarrassment from the Left Better that than holding the country to ransom. High-calibre members are possible now, but not guaranteed as D. J. Round (November 19) implied. Neither are they all bland as he claims — ask Selwyn! Merely citing countries with proportionalism is only suggestive, like gauging a man’s health from his strength. By comparison, France’s decision to reject proportionalism in favour' of our system is strong, irrefutable evidence of the superiorltyAof our present sys-

tem. I totally reject the claim ..that proportionalism is "merely a -more visible form *of what-we have.” it engenders multiple divisions not co-operation and would do nothing but'harm io community spirit Fairness rests in the outcome of conflict not the method of resolution. lamination by the powerful is unfair, whether achieved by force, by words, by politics, or even by the law. — Yours, etc., JOHN W. WOOD. < November 23, 1987.

Sir,—D. P. K. Rennick (November 25) claims there are more social divisions in Italy than in Britain. This may be so, but of course the Westminster Parliament contains members of Parliament from throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The latter part of that kingdom is hardly a model of unity. Indeed, in their attempts to reduce conflict there, the authorities have replaced many Northern Irish political institutions with new ones that are elected using a proportional voting system. If Britain has a high level of industrial growth at the moment , relative to the rest of the E.E.C., it probably has not yet made up for the negative industrial growth of the early days of Thatcherism. — Yours, etc., • <

JOHN RING. November 25, 1987.

Sir,—lf public support for proportional representation flounders it will not be because of its factual benefits as a method of voting but because of the tedium, the repetitious arguments in letters to “The Press.” The diversionary > tactics of opponents include harping on Italy and France (why not Tur-

key?) as Examples of dHsubstyn- • tiated failures, while at the same time totally ignoring not only all the countries where fair representation is a result of proportional representation, but the facts of the” mechanics .of methods concerned with fair, equitable, representation. Even worse, is the totally ignoring of the unfair, inequitable, farcical representation arising from our own method of election. It seems pointless to continue arguing with correspondents who fall to see, dr admit, that some tools are better than others and that, no matter how perfect the tool, Its effects depend upon circumstances, and particularly the capability of the user. — Yours, - etc., ■ ' ... . LJ. ROBINSON. November 25,1987. ■ >