Splitting the AV referendum vote

No single electoral system satisfies all the requirements of a truly democratic parliament, eg: fair representation of all interests and strands of opinion; a stable and effective government; prevention of extreme groups gaining too much power; retaining a direct link between an MP and constituents; enabling MPs to balance their many functions in their constituencies and in parliament; producing a parliament that can hold the executive to account; regulating the powers of party machines in candidate selection, and the corresponding powers of whips in parliament ( A creeping patronage , 11 February); promoting openness in policy determination rather than backroom deals. The best one can achieve is a compromise depending on the importance one places on these different factors. A crude choice between first past the post and the alternative vote is totally inadequate to address all these aspects ( Vote that will change UK politics – but will anyone notice? , 11 February). But there are, in any case, bigger questions. Where does real power lie in society? Anyone who has ever been made redundant thanks to a number cruncher in a distant office knows that it is not in parliament. Even within the limitations of political life, there are issues besides voting. Putting a cross or a number on a ballot paper every few years is only a small – though vital – part of the process. There are also debates on policies, passing resolutions, recruiting members and all the routine work of party organisation that makes an election campaign possible – not to mention selecting one's candidate and trying to ensure he or she remains in touch with the views of constituents before and after the election. A revival of these grassroots activities – all of which have been devalued in recent years – is more important than arguing about electoral systems at the present time. Frank Jackson Political education officer, Harlow Labour party • Dan Hodges of the no campaign says AV would have given the Lib Dems an extra 32 seats in the last election. Most of those would have been at the expense of the Conservatives. They would have made a Labour-Lib Dem coalition viable, or hugely strengthened the Lib Dems' negotiating position had the coalition with the Conservatives still been formed. Steve Parkinson of the no campaign says AV leads to more hung parliaments. Put another way, his case for the current system is that the distortion which gave the Conservatives a much greater share of seats than votes was a good thing. The case for the current system is that it forces people to restrict their votes to the two big parties for fear that anything else would "split the vote"; it distorts more after that, usually giving complete government control to whichever of the two biggest parties gets most votes even if it is well short of true majority support. A vote against AV in the referendum is a vote which says the main thing wrong with the government is the little bit of Lib Dem influence. It is a vote in favour of the distortion that gives David Cameron and his party a false legitimacy as their extreme rightwing policies destroy our nation. The Lib Dems were forced by the distortion that weakened them to "prop up the Conservatives", but anyone who votes against AV is propping up the Conservatives entirely by their own free will. Matthew Huntbach London • You list the first main argument for the no campaign as being "supporters of fringe parties end up having their vote counted several times while supporters of mainstream parties only have their vote counted once". This is rubbish. Under AV, after each lowest candidate is eliminated every vote is tallied again to give new totals for the remaining candidates. AV reproduces the result you'd get if the electorate voted again after each elimination, but does this in one electoral process. John Baker Leicester • Why is the current system called "first past the post"? You report that only 270 MPs achieved the support of the majority of those who voted. The AV system is more likely to ensure that the successful candidate passes the 50% winning post. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the existing system as "most votes cast"? Ross Chisholm Darlington