Letters RSS Feed


You can e-mail your letters to letters@thepress.co.uk

We welcome letters on all topics but please keep them to 300 words at most; shorter letters are most likely to be included.

The editor reserves the right to edit letters.

If you wish the letter to appear in The Press you must include your full postal address and a daytime telephone number.


Time to change the way we vote

7:26am Wednesday 12th September 2007

comment Comments (7)   Have your say »


VIEWS on the doorsteps running up to the Heworth Without by-election were interesting, complex and ultimately frustrating.

Electors were blitzed with more election leaflets than in many general elections. It was asserted that one party put no fewer than 29 separate mailings through the letterboxes.

Many electors were disgusted at the overkill and waste, irrespective of it being on recycled paper.

A number shouted at representatives of the party concerned outside polling stations. Because May's election was so close, many said they would vote tactically in a number of ways, including Lib-Dem to keep the Tory out and Tory to keep the Lib-Dem out. I met two sets of Green Party supporters, including some friends, who intended to vote Lib-Dem.

Although the total of votes cast was up 12 per cent on May, both Greens and Labour suffered about a 25 per cent drop in votes, mostly, it seemed, from votes switching to the Lib-Dems as an anti-Tory vote.

Not only was this unfair on the Green Party and Labour, it was also unfair on the Conservatives.

The only major conclusion one could gain was that it was impossible to draw a conclusion as to the true political complexion of the ward.

This is sad and democracy is the poorer.

Although most people will have voted for the party that they wanted to win, I estimate that 30 per-cent-plus probably didn't.

There could be little clearer indication that a proportional representation system where everyone can simply vote for the party they believe in, is long overdue.

Charles Everett, Green Party candidate, Heworth Without by-election.

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourYork Press

Nonsense, York says...
8:22am Wed 12 Sep 07

Or we could have STV, one of the few systems to have the merits of party and candidate. Calling for PR is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard a green say, you should be ashamed, it's normally a lib dem falacy.

Report this post »

GeorgeAppleby, Clifton, York. says...
9:00am Wed 12 Sep 07

Can you explain for the voters how it would work, and benefit them, as it is them who are staying away from the poles and trying to be represented in negative tactical voting. Please?

Report this post »

Jason, says...
10:05am Wed 12 Sep 07

Maybe the parties need to look within for the causes of voter apathy?

I would suggest looking at the lieing, self serving, self promoting, failing to listen to the electorate, blind following of party policy, sleaze, corruption, reliance on spin, snipping, back biting and general all round nastiness that party politics brings. Solve that and maybe more people will show an interest?

Why should we bother when despite all the promises you all turn into the same thing?

Report this post »

Jack, York says...
4:21pm Wed 12 Sep 07

Nonsense you're an idiot. STV is a form of PR, proportional represnetation includes all the different types such as party list, alternative vote and single transferable vote. The Lib Dems prefered option is STV which you seem so keen on. Like I said, idiot.

Report this post »

Nonsense, York says...
5:10pm Wed 12 Sep 07

No, not everyone regards it as a form of PR actually. For the last 15 or 20 years it has been regarded as such because it has been realised how much power parties have in selection of candidates. Before then it was regarded as PR but since fewer studies were done on voting systems back then and many people didn't understand the difference the point was irrelevent.

The lib dems prefered method is currently STV, it wasn't originally ;-). I'm not an idiot, just a lot more experienced than you Jack.

Report this post »

LibDem, York says...
5:31pm Wed 12 Sep 07

Strictly the LibDems favour using the single transferable vote system in multi member wards or constituencies.
However, to have any effect at local government level, you would have to introduce much larger wards meaning Heworth Without (1600 homes) would be joined with several others. A 6 seat ward would serve about 10,000 households.
People would list the candidates in order of preference (there would usually be a candidate from each party for each available seat). 6 seats might end up - on current voting trends being divided up between 3 LibDem Councillors, 2 Labour and 1 Conservative, increasing the chances of having a “no overall control” or “balanced” Council. But we have that in York already.
Parties with less than 10% of the vote would be - under this system - unlikely to get any seats. The Greens got 4% of the vote in Heworth Without in May (when the leaflet deluge didn't take place) and that fell to 3% in September. Whichever way you look at it, Mr Everett simply isn't popular enough to get elected under any democratic system (other than maybe the “party list” option where electors have no choice of candidate – they just vote for a party).
As a set of lame excuses for coming last in a democratic election this letter will take some beating

Report this post »

GeorgeAppleby, Clifton, York. says...
9:17am Thu 13 Sep 07

Would independent, local, youth councils be useful? Chosen from senior schools by secret balet and upper age limit of seventeen? Elected representatives from these could be heard at regular public meetings with the ruling councils and reported on.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links






Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »