MR Stowell (Letters, April 21) is perfectly entitled to vote, No', in the referendum on the voting system for the Westminster government, but he should make quite sure that he knows on what principle(s) he votes as he intends.  

The system that we have is customary, not constitutional (we don't have a constitution) so there can be no objection to changing what we have to something more in favour with the population

The most satisfactory system is where more than 50% of the electorate all give their first vote to one person, so that a clear winner emerges. Unfortunately, it rarely happens, except in rigged elections. First past the post (FPTP) more or less guarantees that the person elected will have less than 50% support of the electorate and less than 40% is common, which means that the majority of the electorate didn't support the 'winner'. To my mind, this is unfair.  

With FPTP, a compromise is not possible, but the Alternative Vote (AV) system allows it, so that voters can place their mark against candidate A, but also indicate that they would rather have, say, candidate B than C if A comes bottom of the poll.

This allows people who do not support the candidate with the most votes some political influence that they would not otherwise have, and I can't see how this goes against any democratic principle.

In my opinion, it's not a perfect system, but it's better than what we have and, I hope, a step on the way to a proper proportional system of representation. Under AV, Mr Stowell would still able to vote for just the one candidate. He would not be obliged to indicate second and third preferences, even though this would reduce his influence on the outcome of the poll.

There is one further point that Mr Stowell might like to consider. When the election for the leader of the Conservative Party took place in 2005, the results from the first round were:  David Davis (62 votes), David Cameron (56), Liam Fox (42), Ken Clark (38). This election was held essentially under an AV scheme and the final winner was David Cameron, who would not have won under FPTP.

It seems he is quite prepared to support a fairer system for the election of party leader, where Conservatives are up against other Conservatives, but not for the Westminster elections, in which Conservative are pitted against people from other parties. If this is based on a principle, it doesn't seem to be a very democratic one.

K Vines, Horrabridge

THE election on May 5 will also be an opportunity for us to re-consider our system of voting when we will be offered a choice (should we choose to accept it) of retaining the status quo or voting for an alternative (AV) system. 

In general the current Government (and the BNP) want to keep the status quo whilst opposition parties want you to support a change and vote for the new AV system.  They have both brought up many pros and cons to support their argument. 

One item that I have recently seen has secured my support for change. At the last General Election, if AV had been used, the Lib Dems would have won about 35 more seats, the Labour Party about 15 more seats, and the Tories would have won one more seat.  What a surprise they want to keep hold of the winning formula!  

Bryan Podmore

Redmoor Close

Tavistock