Letter: The best way to vote

Sir: Donald Macintyre suggests (Comment, 8 May) that the Alternative Vote (AV) offers a middle course on electoral reform which should be supported by Liberal Democrats.

AV does not provide for proportionality. As Donald Macintyre says, in 1997 AV would have produced an even less proportional result than first- past-the-post. A two-stage approach to electoral reform with AV being introduced for the next election and top-up lists being added after boundary changes is also suggested (AV-plus). This is likely to be more costly than a one-step reform and may lead to an increased number of MPs if proportionality is to be achieved. More MPs would be both unpopular and unjustified.

Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote (STV) as the system best able to meet the terms of reference of the Jenkins Commission. STV could be introduced at the next election without a lengthy Boundary Commission review by simply aggregating existing seats based on natural communities such as cities. STV maximises voter choice, allows preferential voting and could maintain the constituency link by the use of multi-member natural constituencies.

AV is not a proportional system, and does not therefore meet the remit of the Jenkins Commission. AV-plus may be more proportional than AV, but there is a system that better meets the remit of the Commission in STV.

ROBERT MACLENNAN MP

(Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Lib Dem)

House of Commons

London SW1

The writer is Liberal Democrat Constitutional Affairs Spokesman