Letter: A yes vote for electoral reform

Lord Mayhew
Thursday 01 April 1993 17:02 EST
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: In splendid style, Andrew Marr ('A degree of unfairness is good for democracy', 1 April) ridicules the political parties for backing the electoral system that serves them best. But Mr Marr appears blind to the democratic principle which follows: The method by which politicians are elected should be decided by the electors and not the politicians. It is by their loyalty to this unarguable principle that true electoral reformers can be distinguished from false.

New Zealand has shown the way. Last September the electors were asked two questions in a referendum: whether they wished to change the first-past-the-post system, and which alternative system they preferred.

Electoral reformers have a choice. They can campaign against each other for the system they prefer, pointing out the defects of the

others' systems. This will delight the Tory party and ensure the continuance of first-past-the-post. Or they can join forces in attacking first-past-the-post and demanding a referendum.

When a referendum has been conceded - and not before - they can campaign for their preferred system without helping their common enemy.

Yours faithfully,

CHRISTOPHER MAYHEW

House of Lords

London, SW1

1 April

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