Power struggle

While it is both sensible and democratic for two closely matched leading parties to coalesce, as in Edinburgh, the more common coalition of the winning party with a minor one denies the electorate what it voted for, virtually rewriting the election result.

Although councillors are in fact all returned as independent members, it is surely time now to recognise the reality of party voting. The transferable vote system was introduced at individual candidate level to provide a fairer reflection of voters’ wishes than first-past-the-post. It would be only sensible therefore to apply the same proportionality to a council’s cabinet of senior members.

Important decisions would then encompass representative views of the full range of the electorate, as opposed to inappropriate power being exercised by any party providing minority support, as at Westminster. Edinburgh’s Labour group was apparently planning to extend that to two.

Party proportionality would provide balance and continuity by ending the practice of that arrangement being altered by councillors changing allegiance, as the body’s party composition would be fixed according to the election result. In the event of any member failing to serve the full term, there would be no need for a by-election, as the party represented would merely choose a successor.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent

My main objection to the idea of transferring voters’ preferences from one candidate to another is that it is based on the fallacious assumption that a second or subsequent preference ranks equally with someone else’s first preference.

I would like James Gilmour (Letters, 8 May) to explain what he thinks would be wrong, given a four-member ward with five candidates, with a requirement for voters to mark up to four crosses on the ballot paper with a simple count-up at the end. Would that not achieve his concept of fairness without all the statistical contortions?

Robert Bowers

Glassel Park Road

Longniddry

It is most strange that James Gilmour attempts to defend the indefensible and states that STV “strengthens’’ elector-elected links. What nonsense.

We now have examples all over Scotland of “elected” representatives from minor parties, in some cases single members having less than 1 per cent of the vote, assuming power light years beyond anything handed to them by the electorate.

Simply by holding the balance of power they can become the tail wagging the dog.

This was the case in Israel for some years and resulted in generally moderate governments having to placate extremists to stay in power.

It is a travesty of democracy.

First-past-the-post was an anything but perfect system, I agree, but STV is infinitely worse.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

EdinburghLos estientemus