Do we really need proportional representation?

After the local elections in May the Walthamstow Guardian was kind enough to publish a letter from me pointing out how lopsided the result was, due to the first-past-the-post voting system. In particular, I pointed out that Labour have 43% of the councillors from only 34% of the vote (and thus have 5 more councillors than they are entitled to by their share of the vote). And I also pointed to the fact that the Greens have no representation on the council despite more than 8,000 people voting for them. I concluded by stating that we needed proportional representation to get a fairer and more democratic result.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Someone called M.Griffiths had a letter published in response. As the Letters Page is not online I shall quote, `It is clearly not appreciated by Grouchy that it is proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience'.

Now that struck me as quite an extraordinary statement. So I replied, and once again the Guardian was kind enough to publish, on the 8th June, in edited form. I have no complaint about the letter being edited (it was probably a bit longer than would be regarded as ideal), but it is a pity that they cut the part that tied my general point into the local elections. Never mind. Here it is, with the parts edited out placed in square brackets - like this [....].

Dear Editor,

M.Griffiths writes to oppose proportional representation because `it is the proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience' (Letters June 1). Perhaps M.Griffiths could tell us which of these groups is responsible for the continuing occupation of Iraq, the attacks on our civil liberties [(ID cards, police `shoot to kill' policy)], the undermining of Parliament through the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill, or the lunatic privatisation of the NHS, education and council housing? Which group is responsible for the fact that while the privatised water companies post large profits for their shareholders they allow huge amounts of leakage and claim we are suffering from a drought?

The problem is the direct opposite. [Our foreign policy is run by the USA, and our domestic policy is run in the interests of big business to the detriment of us all].] All three of the main parties are neoconservative in foreign policy (i.e. do what the USA tells them to), and are neoliberal in domestic policy (privatising everything in sight in the interests of big business, and transferring wealth to the already powerful). The first past the post electoral system allows the big parties to ignore the wishes of the electorate. We need proportional representation not because it would be some kind of magic solution, but because it would begin to force the parties to listen to what we want,[rather than Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.]

[The current government was elected by 21.8% of the electorate (33% of those who voted). There is no majority for their current extremist policies. In the local elections Labour received 43% of the councillors from 34% of the vote - and have 5 more councillors than their share of the vote entitles them to. It took 2,229 votes to elect each Labour councillor, but 2,926 to elect each Liberal Democrat, and 3,132 to elect each Conservative. Perhaps M.Griffiths can tell us what it is about that that ensures good local government? I am neither a member or supporter of the Green Party, but I have no doubt that they have sufficient support across the borough to deserve to be represented on the Council.]

We need the smaller parties such as the Greens and Respect to represent the interests of ordinary people rather than the big corporations and the USA. [We need proportional representation to begin to get a more democratic system of national and local government, where what the majority of people want can no longer be ignored. That is called democracy. That is what we need.]

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.