Letter: Voters vs parties

David Faull
Thursday 24 June 1999 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Tim Knight (letter, 22 June) supports voting for parties rather than individual candidates. Under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) and closed list (CL) systems it is the party activists who decide who gets candidature and, thus, who is elected, because most voters vote on party lines.

However, there are systems which give the final choice between several candidates of each party to the electors: open lists (OL) , like the system used for the recent Euro-elections except that the voter votes for individual candidates on the party lists, who are then elected in order of the votes they have received; and the single transferable vote (STV), which has the added advantage that voters can vote across party if they wish to follow their own non-party priorities - feminist, pro/anti-Europe, anti- racist, green and so on

In such systems it becomes really necessary for individual candidates to campaign to get their own message over and tell the electorate where they stand. Under FPTP that is a charade in all but marginal seats. With CL individual campaigns become redundant, as we saw in the Euro-elections.

The huge advance under STV or OL is that the electorate get a real influence in the way parties develop by choosing which views within them get represented in Parliament.

Why does Westminster seek to reinvent the wheel? Why would turkeys not vote for Christmas? Self-interest, otherwise known as sleaze.

DAVID FAULL

Ramsgate, Kent

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in